Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Welsh Development Agency

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful for this opportunity early in the new Parliament to put a focus on one of the key issues that arose from the general election—the failure of the Government, and the Government agencies, to overcome the job shortage in many parts of Wales.
I shall focus on the industrial location strategy of the Welsh Development Agency because the WDA is the main vehicle for delivering new job opportunities in Wales and because its strategy is laid down for it by the Welsh Office. Clearly, with a change of Government, there will now be fresh consideration given to a strategy that is appropriate in the light of the new Government's objectives. No doubt, discussion is currently going on between the Welsh Office and the WDA to that end. My objective in this debate is to spell out what we feel should be that strategy; I hope also to elicit from the Minister what is the Government's thinking on a matter that was central to Labour's general election manifesto.
I make it clear from the outset that I do not come to this debate carrying any baggage of hostility towards the WDA. I have long had an attachment to the agency; I can even claim paternity to it—or at least a share in the paternity. Back in 1970s, Professor Phil Williams and I published an economic plan for Wales in which a national development authority had a central role. I was on the Standing Committee in 1975 when the previous Labour Government brought forward the legislation that set up the agency.
I am the first to acknowledge that, in the 22 years since its creation, the WDA has played a significant role in the economic regeneration of Wales. It has given Wales a vehicle for fulfilling policies of which the regions of England have been understandably envious. It has also demonstrated how a national all-Wales body, working specifically for Wales, can have a direct, beneficial effect on the life and well-being of the people of Wales.
Having said that, I must acknowledge that—especially in recent years—there have been aspects of the WDA's policies with which I have disagreed, although such areas of disagreement have arisen primarily from the strategy laid down by the Welsh Office under the previous Government.
Let me first give some background to the economic context within which the WDA works and seeks to meet its strategic objectives. Wales has experienced a massive

change in its employment structure over the past generation. Industries that used to be the backbone of the Welsh economy, such as coal mining and slate quarrying, have been virtually wiped out. Those industries often existed in communities that had almost no other source of employment. We have seen the rundown of agriculture as a source of full-time employment, and the farm labourer has become an almost extinct species. The sea fishing industry, once a major employer along the western seaboard of Wales, has dwindled to a shadow of its former self and in other areas the steel industry has been rationalised, resulting in its employment capacity being a fraction of what it was a generation ago.
We are, therefore, faced with serious endemic problems of long-term unemployment and a lack of job opportunities for those leaving school in both old industrial centres and rural areas. The loss of well-paid jobs in many of those industries has led to a severe decline in the level of personal incomes, so that gross domestic product per head in Wales has fallen from 92 per cent. to only 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. Part of that decline is due to the fact that where replacement jobs have been secured, they are often low skilled and sometimes part time—26 per cent. of the Welsh work force is employed in part-time work, which is the highest proportion in the European Union.
In the past decade, there has been a noticeable drop in average weekly earnings in Wales compared with those in the UK. Between 1985 and 1995, average weekly earnings of males dropped from 93.1 per cent. of the British average to 88.5 per cent; and earnings of females from 94 to 91.5 per cent. In the old county of Gwynedd, the drop was far worse: by 1995, Gwynedd males were earning only 83.8 per cent. of the British average and Gwynedd females only 86.1 per cent.
In 1995, men in Wales earned £43 a week less than the British average and women £22 less. To increase those earning levels must become a strategic objective of the WDA and that must be a factor in its industrial location decisions. Activity rates among men have fallen from 91.5 per cent. in 1971 to 81.2 per cent. by 1991. Those factors of low activity rates, high unemployment, low wages and a high level of part-time working have created pockets of acute poverty and deprivation.
That, of course, is not the entire picture for Wales. There are some areas where there has been considerable success in economic regeneration. Along the M4 corridor in southern Gwent and eastern Glamorgan, and along the A55 corridor in Deeside running through into the Wrecsam area, there has been a significant influx of new industry, not least by way of inward investment from overseas. About 50 companies from Japan have set up in Wales, along with many companies from the United States, and most recently we have heard of the immense LG project for Newport. We congratulate the WDA on its success in that area.
It is against that background that we must consider the appropriateness of the job strategy and location strategy of the WDA. That must be considered in geographic, sectoral and structural terms.
Until recently, the guidelines laid down by the Welsh Office for the activities of the Welsh Development Agency accepted that up to 80 per cent. of the new jobs created in or attracted to Wales should be in two target areas, representing less than 10 per cent. of the land area.


of Wales. Those two areas were, first, around the M4 corridor in southern Gwent and eastern Glamorgan; and, secondly, around the A55 corridor in Fflintshire and Wrecsham. It is worth noting that three of the four new counties with the lowest unemployment in Wales are Monmouth, Wrecsam and Fflintshire, all with about 5 per cent. unemployment, and all are counties that coincide with those target areas.

Mr. David Hanson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, irrespective of that point, there is still a high inactivity rate among many people in Fflintshire, Wrecsam and the surrounding areas, and that many people are off the unemployment register and have become long-term inactive for a range of reasons, not least the closure of the pit in my constituency?

Mr. Wigley: I shall shortly discuss the need to get accurate local figures, which were, of course, distorted considerably during the previous Government's term of office.
The WDA strategy defined as acceptable a situation where as few as 20 per cent. of the new jobs should come to the rest of Wales—90 per cent. of the land area of Wales—despite the fact that two thirds of unemployed people in Wales live outside the two target areas.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not an odd proposition that the greatest effort has been made where the need is least and where the locational advantages are the greatest in Wales, which adds to the imbalances within the Principality?

Mr. Wigley: That is the thrust of the argument that I am trying to develop; I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Between 1993 and 1996, a total of 134 manufacturing projects in Wales were offered regional selective assistance. Only five of those were in Gwynedd and only seven in Dyfed. That bears out the point that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made. That was a wholly unacceptable strategy, whereby Conservative Secretaries of State consigned countless thousands of unemployed people, and especially young unemployed people, to the economic scrap heap. As a result of the failure to establish a strategy and policy that would secure jobs within reasonable travelling distances of their homes—in north-west Wales, in south-west Wales and in the western industrial valleys of Glamorgan—those people have missed out severely.
The more cynical in our midst in Wales suggested that the Tory Government were deliberately using the Welsh Office industrial development budget to create a massive number of new job opportunities in Deeside in the north-east to try to meet the unemployment problems of Liverpool, and in Newport in the south-east to contribute to meeting the needs of Bristol. I readily accept that both those areas undoubtedly have their problems, but it is totally unacceptable that the budget of the Welsh Office should be used to solve their problems.
That deliberate policy of giving priority to securing new jobs in those parts of Wales which, because of geography and transport, were the easiest areas in which to secure employment, as the hon. Member for Swansea,

East said, was a cynical betrayal of those areas of Wales where the challenge was that much greater and which required that much more effort to crack the problem. It has led to seething anger in those areas, because people feel that they have been abandoned by the Department of State that was supposed to safeguard their interests—the Welsh Office, which determined the strategy within which the WDA operates. If ever there was an example of why both the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency should be made answerable to a directly elected Parliament of the people of Wales, this is it.
During the last few desultory months of the 18 years of Tory rule, as the last Secretary of State sat in his Welsh Office bunker, awaiting his party's richly deserved annihilation in Wales, there was a deathbed pang of conscience. On 19 March 1997, the Secretary of State adjusted the target figures, so that 50 per cent. of the new jobs might go to the two target areas and the other 50 per cent. should be secured for the other 90 per cent. of the land area of Wales, which includes most of the areas of high unemployment and deprivation. However, in adjusting the Welsh Office strategy for the WDA in that way, no indication was given of how those targets should be achieved.
There is, however, one intriguing sentence in the new guidelines which states that the WDA
is expected to recognise, within the United Kingdom and European Union limits, the extra costs of locating in areas outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors".
What does that mean? Does it mean that the WDA can make grants to compensate for geographic disadvantage? If so, by what mechanism and from where is the additional cash to be found? I suggest that the cash found should be ring fenced in the same way as money was ring fenced for the LG project. Money should be ring fenced for the needs of south-west and north-west Wales and for the western industrial valleys.
One of the answers given by the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office in justifying their former strategy has been that many of the footloose international companies, when considering coming to Wales, stipulate that they want to be in one or other of those two corners of Wales and that in trying to persuade them to come to a more westerly part, the WDA might risk losing investment in its entirety. That is, no doubt, because so many of the inward investment projects are manufacturing to sell their products in the main markets of continental Europe and, therefore, want to be strategically located to take advantage of road, rail and air links to continental Europe. It is worth pointing out to little Englanders on both sides of the Chamber that it would be disastrous for the economic regeneration of Wales if we were to withdraw from the European Union.
If attracting industrial projects to more westerly locations than Newport or Wrecsam is impossible for the UK Government, how is it that the Irish Government have succeeded in creating 10 times more new jobs in Ireland in the past five years than the UK Government have succeeded in creating in Wales? Ireland is divided by greater distances and a maritime crossing from the main markets of those companies, but, if the circumstances offered to companies are right, industries can be established and located in such locations.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Is it not a fact that most of these large investments are basically assembly plants? Does not the future lie in creating supplier networks out to the communities that he and I are interested in? Those are the role, function and targets that the WDA and Welsh Office are now aiming for. Supplier networks for those large assembly plants that lie along the M4 could be our job future.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, I saw the report in the Western Mail yesterday. It is hoped that about half the supplier companies to LG might be in Wales. That is good news and needs emphasising.
I suggest to the House, however, that the Welsh Office and the WDA have accepted far too easily the received wisdom that Newport and Wrecsam are ideally located to sell to Dusseldorf or Milan, whereas Holyhead, Caernarfon, Pwllheli, Ffestiniog, Ammanford or Aberdare are impossibly remote for such a purpose. That is nonsense and reflects much more on the mentality of those who drew up the strategy than it does on manufacturing industry. A small company located in Llanberis in my constituency manufactures medical diagnostic kits, 96 per cent. of which are exported. Llanberis is, in fact, closer in time to Manchester airport than Oxford is to Heathrow.
I would suggest that, with unemployment rates of 14 per cent. in Holyhead and south Pembroke, 12 per cent. in Aberdare and 10 per cent. in Caernarfon and Llanelli, the time has come for a fundamental change in the strategy laid down on the Welsh Development Agency.
It is time for 80 per cent. of the new jobs towards which the WDA or the Welsh Office provide public funding to be located outside the two target areas that have done so well in the past. There should be specific targets for securing new jobs in the western part of Wales, the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed, and in the western parts of the coalfield area.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case about the need to attract jobs into west Wales. I am sure that he would agree that we should also underpin the indigenous industries in those parts of Wales. One of the great dangers that those industries face is that the strategy adopted by the previous Government was to force the Welsh Development Agency to sell its units, many of which are rented by local businesses. They may well be sold over their heads, and they may be charged rentals that they cannot afford if major companies move in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Office should address that issue?

Mr. Wigley: Yes. I was just coming to that.
One aspect of the WDA's policy that I should like to highlight concerns the availability of industrial land and buildings. Virtually no strategic sites are available in Gwynedd for inward investment, although I understand that the WDA may be in discussion with the county council on one possibility near Bangor, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). Why should those sites not already be earmarked? Furthermore, there are no WDA-owned industrial estates in Pwllheli and the Llyn peninsula. In view of that failing, I must ask how the WDA is meeting its obligation to unemployed people and the young jobseekers of Pwllheli and western Dwyfor.
The rents that have been charged in the Cibyn industrial estate in Caernarfon for units ranging between 1,000 sq ft and 3,000 sq ft range between £3.15 and £3.50 per sq ft. The rent being charged for similarly sized units in Amlwch, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), is £2.50 per sq ft. Amlwch has the advantage of full development area status, which we in Caernarfon do not have. That underlines the need to review these rent levels.
If, in the past, Wales has been regarded as remote from the centres of population, trade and commerce, the advent of modern technology and telecommunications makes such a concept much less relevant. There is no reason why telemarketing call centres and computer-based work cannot take place in the most remote Welsh communities, with the essential product—information transmitted by land line—being sent at next to no cost to any urban centre in Europe or the world. Given the natural verbal skills of the Welsh people, this is perhaps a natural industry to grow in Wales.
I am conscious that the Welsh Development Agency has recognised the need to create a state of the art fibre-optic cabling of Wales as the basis for developing information industries throughout our country. A bid was made for millennium projects support for such an investment a short while ago. Given that the WDA saw that as a priority, and recognised that such an investment would be immensely expensive but also beneficial to the Welsh economy, the question for the Welsh Office now is: how does it intend to take that agenda forward? I doubt whether the Welsh Office budget is likely to have that much money—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. In that case, the investment must be secured from elsewhere.
If we look around for the industrial concerns that may have that sort of money at their disposal, and an active interest in cabling up Wales, we find that there are relatively few contenders. Cable television companies might be interested, but the danger is that they will want only the rich pickings of the populous areas, leaving mid-Wales, north-west Wales and south-west Wales out in the cold. It would be outrageous if the WDA were party to an agreement that discriminated against those areas.
If no cable company were willing to take on such a broad responsibility, might it be possible to persuade British Telecom to undertake it, recognising, of course, that it would need something in return? Might that return emanate from a liberalising of the restrictions on what British Telecom can convey on a upgraded network of telephone lines, which, after all, go into every household? Optic cable links can carry myriad communication elements into every house, including multi-channel television links, interactive commercial links, the information highway and an embryonic element of a diffused and decentralised data processing structure. That, of itself, would enhance the potential of people to work from their own homes; and in an age when we must all be more environmentally conscious, it would minimise the unnecessary transportation of people and products.
The WDA has identified the development of this infrastructure; the challenge now is to take it forward because of its importance to the Welsh economy. Today, we want to know the attitude of the new Government to such developments. What guidelines are they giving the WDA? This is an urgent issue because key decisions are about to be taken and there are specific steps that the


Welsh Office and other Government Departments must take to help the countless thousands who are unemployed in Wales.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman share my welcome for the Secretary of State's announcement two weeks ago of investment proposals for west and north Wales? Would he further agree that one reason why these areas have fallen into neglect has been the decline in employment in the slate quarries? I think in particular of Bethesda in the Dyffryn Ogwen area, where the trend has been one of gradual decline. Successive Governments have not given those problem areas the attention that they deserve, so the unemployment figures have steadily worsened.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, indeed. The hon. Lady represents an area similar to mine, so she is well aware of the problems. I accept her points.
We need to be clear about the size of the unemployment problem. The official figure for Wales is about 80,000, but I suspect that the true number is between two and three times as high—the labour force survey certainly suggests that.
We need a review of the workings of the Industry Act 1982, because many of the areas formerly designated for industrial development have now done very well indeed. We should not use crude unemployment figures for the purpose; we should factor in activity rate figures, the age structure of the work force, youth unemployment, outward migration to seek work and incomes per head. Consideration should also be given to how the UK industrial development map would best accord with the prospects of maximising help from the European Union. I stake a claim today that the Government should seek objective 1 status for the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed within the European Union; a review is currently under way.
There also needs to be a change in emphasis in the WDA between the support given to large companies to come and locate in Wales and the lack of support for small indigenous companies when they want to expand—the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). Time after time, I have heard of small businesses in Wales asking the WDA for assistance but being given no practical help. There is often an initial indication of interest, but then it fizzles out and no cash materialises. It is immensely frustrating for small companies in Wales to hear of millions of pounds being provided through the Welsh Office or the WDA for inward investment projects—sometimes at a cost of £30,000 or £40,000 a job—when they cannot get a brass farthing towards creating a handful of much-needed jobs in some of our scattered communities.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is clear that a key element in any strategy for revitalising rural Wales is value addition to our food products. There is a food centre at Horeb in my constituency, established by the local county council, which has applied to the DTI for a grant to set up as a teaching business company. The sum requested is quite small—about £250,000—but the money has not been forthcoming.
Furthermore, the regulations governing the establishment of teaching business companies usually apply to large industrial systems only. Is not that a good example of how we need both the right policies in place and relatively small sums of money to set up enterprises that would be of key importance not just to Ceredigion but to the whole of Wales, as part of a Welsh food strategy?

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The Development Board for Rural Wales operates in rural and mid-Wales, but in areas such as Dwyfor, Preseli or Dinefwr, which fall within the WDA's remit, there needs to be a more integrated strategy serving the needs of rural Wales.
In developing its strategy, the WDA must, of necessity, be conscious of the resources that we have in Wales. One of those resources is the produce of our agricultural sector. In terms of meat and dairy products, we have a tremendous resource, but it is often too poorly marketed, and the added value in the food chain takes place outside Wales. We look with envy at how Ireland has succeeded in building on its agricultural and food production base. That must surely be an area in which the WDA more positively helps to facilitate development.
We also have the resource of our national University of Wales and of the research undertaken by its scientific and technological departments. Why on earth does such highly regarded research work not lead to more practical benefits, in terms of applied technology and jobs? The contrast between the direct spin-offs—jobs—created around Cambridge in England or Boston in the United States and the lack of such spin-offs in Wales is staggering. Key people in our university often take an academic delight in boasting that their work is not necessarily of relevance to Wales but is of relevance to mankind. That is all well and good, but they should remember that their budgets come from the Welsh expenditure block, and it is not unreasonable that the people of Wales should look to its university to bring back more direct benefits to the Welsh economy.
I mentioned earlier Ireland's success in attracting new jobs. We are, of course, aware that GDP per head in the Irish Republic is not just greater than that of Wales but has overtaken the UK's. We in Wales must learn the lesson from Ireland that it is important to create a skilled work force. The Irish have put substantial resources into education, to ensure that the industrial and commercial skills are there for potential employers. There has been a tragic failure to do that in Wales and throughout the UK. As a result—incredibly—there are high pockets of unemployment in Wales side by side with industrialists who cannot find adequately trained labour.
A strategic consideration, therefore, must be the improved skilling of the Welsh work force; the failure of the TECs in Wales in this context must be brought into the equation. There may be a case for integrating them with the WDA—and integrating part of their work with local authorities—so that the feedback from employers in Wales finds its way directly into the organisation of training and reskilling the work force. Clearly, there must also be a much closer liaison between education and training if this problem is to be solved.
On the need for reskilling our work force, the Government must surely be aware of the academic research that has been undertaken in Cardiff, based on


primary research in Scotland, showing the benefit to the economy from investing in education, which virtually pays for itself. That is of direct relevance to the debate.
I was glad that the previous Government made some progress with regard to establishing training centres in Gwent and Bridgend, although I was sorry that no Welsh educational institution bid successfully for the Bridgend contract, and that we had to go to Swindon to find people who could take on the contract.
Do the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency seriously believe that a training centre in Bridgend will serve the needs of unemployed people in Pembroke Dock or Aberystwyth, let alone Porthmadog, Bangor or Penygroeis? If it is their intention that such a centre should serve the whole of Wales, will travelling and residential costs be reimbursed? If, as I suspect, that is not the intention, can we have training centres nearer the people in Wales?
Another target sector that the WDA has identified, but which is being developed sporadically, is the television and film sector. We have a significant infrastructure in film production in Wales already, but I often wonder whether that base has been provided for the development of existing opportunities. One thinks particularly of the film development funds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We need something similar if we are to take the maximum opportunity in Wales.
A further sector with a strong track record is marine biology in Bangor, yet we do not get the jobs arising from that.
Because of pressure of time and to allow other hon. Members to speak, I shall curtail my remarks. The work of the WDA must be seen in the context of the resources available to it. Its budget has been severely eroded over recent years. During the Redwood era, the WDA was specifically required to sell off the family silver in order to maintain its statutory responsibilities. That was an outrageous situation and must never be allowed to recur.
The way in which the WDA was starved of cash in terms of grant in aid during the Redwood era is staggering. In 1991–92, the grant in aid stood at £87.5 million. By 1994–95, it was down to £50 million and by 1995–96, it was down to £29.2 million. The WDA had to make up the shortfall by selling its capital assets, but, despite its doing that, the cuts had a direct material effect on the total expenditure of the WDA, which fell from £165 million in 1992–93 to £130 million in 1995–96.
It is true that additional resources have been put in recently, not least because of the need to ensure that money was available for the LG project. The net result is that the revised budget for 1997–98 stands at £152 million, which is below the level of the 1992–93 budget. When one takes into account the fact that some of that money is earmarked for the LG project, it becomes clear that the resources available for the rest of Wales have fallen significantly in real terms.
That is a direct consequence of the dogmatic approach of the previous Government. The incoming Labour Government must give a commitment to avoiding that and to providing adequate funding for the WDA to do its job properly.
We have recently heard about the appointment of the new chief executive, Mr. Brian Willott, and we wish him well in his responsibilities. It is a pleasant change to have a chief executive whose roots are in Wales and who is also prepared to live in Wales.
The WDA has a challenging time ahead. It will face changes in its democratic answerability and, quite possibly, in its structure and remit. All those will develop over the coming months. What is needed now is a clear-cut and decisive strategy geared to providing a fair range of jobs in required numbers within reasonable travelling distance of every community in Wales.
The WDA will need hands-on leadership, from within the Welsh Office and, in due course, from the Welsh Assembly and from its own senior executives. Its success or failure will be measured in terms of the increase in sustainable employment opportunities and in the standard of living and the quality of life in Wales. Its success or failure will be felt most of all by the people of Wales.
From the start, getting the strategy for the WDA right must be a priority for Welsh Office Ministers. We wish the Minister and his team well in their work, as we do the staff of the WDA. Labour was elected overwhelmingly in Wales on a programme of getting jobs for the people. It is now time for the Government to deliver. The WDA is the vehicle for facilitating that delivery. It is time to make it happen, and we hope that that is what the Welsh Office intends to do.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the industrial location policy of the Welsh Development Agency.
The new seat of Preseli Pembrokeshire was created, in part, from a small section of the previous Ceredigion and Pembroke, North seat, which was ably represented in the House by Cynog Dafis, the first Green party Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, who has played a prominent role in bringing environmental issues to the fore in debate both here and in west Wales.
The major part of Preseli was inherited from the former Pembroke seat previously represented by my Labour colleague, Nick Ainger, who has shifted slightly east and now represents West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire. My hon. Friend was the third Nick in a row to represent Pembrokeshire at Westminster. In 1992, he defeated the Conservative Nicholas Bennett, who had followed the former Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards, on his retirement from the Commons in 1987.
During the five years since 1992, Nick Ainger has earned a reputation as an excellent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament with a great interest in environmental issues. I have great pleasure in following tradition and paying tribute to his record as my predecessor in the House. His maiden speech referred to the importance of pollution control measures in the burning of fossil fuels, notably proposals to import and burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station—an issue which is on-going and affects his constituency, in which the power station is situated, but has also raised concerns throughout west Wales and further afield.
The environment, together with job creation throughout all sectors of our economy, are without doubt the two most important issues in Preseli Pembrokeshire. The two issues are not separate, but closely interlinked.
Pembrokeshire is a beautiful county, affectionately known by those who live there as Wales's premier county, and for good reason. We have probably the most beautiful coastline in the entire United Kingdom—a fact exemplified by the existence of the Pembrokeshire Coast national park, which was created to protect and conserve that coastline from increasing threats: threats from land use development, as well as the inevitable ecological and environmental pressures from the increasing number of tourists who come to share and enjoy our beautiful county.
Our offshore islands of Skomer, Skokholm and Grassholm are internationally recognised nature reserves. The seas around the island of Skomer are a marine nature reserve, one of only three in the whole of the UK. That designation was awarded in 1990 in recognition of that unique and sensitive marine environment. It is hoped that it will soon be matched by designation as a European special area of conservation.
That will mean that the highest environmental standards are required for any development around our coast, which is vital to protect the livelihood of the many local people who rely on the agriculture, tourism and fishing industries. Insistence on the highest possible standards for development is vital also to restore the balance between the needs of the petro-chemical industry based around Milford Haven waterway and the other sectors of our economy that I have mentioned.
Much as I should like to extol further the virtues of Pembrokeshire, I am conscious that this is an Adjournment debate and that the time available for Members to contribute is limited. I shall outline the problems faced by our local economy and the reason why an effective strategy for regional development is so important to us in Pembrokeshire.
As I said, anyone visiting Pembrokeshire almost always recognises that it is a beautiful place in which to live. However, that beauty masks some serious problems which are just as severe as and, in some cases, worse than those in many more obviously deprived parts of Wales or the UK as a whole.
The population of the administrative county of Pembrokeshire is about 110,000—a figure which census information shows has grown significantly in recent years. It is, however, an aging population. For example, there was a fall of 11.65 per cent. in the number of males in the age group 16 to 24 between 1981 and 1991, compared to a fall of 9 per cent. in Wales overall. Over the same 10-year period, the number of males aged over 65 increased by 27.6 per cent., compared with a Welsh figure of 15.1 per cent. Thus, we have a greater migration of our young people out of the county, but a substantially greater influx of people over retirement age.
From my 20 years living in Pembrokeshire, I know that young people who have grown up in the county would generally like to stay, and leave only because work opportunities are simply not available for them. They face the choice of moving elsewhere to find work, or remaining with no prospect of work, or prospects of wage rates as low as £2.20 an hour or even less. Those figures were outlined by Cardiff business school for west Wales in studies from 1996.
Unemployment figures have been consistently high since the late 1970s and are some of the worst in the United Kingdom. Long-term unemployment increased significantly between 1995 and 1996, despite numerous changes to the way in which the former Government calculated the "official" figures. A recent study commissioned by Pembrokeshire county council estimated that, in 1994, Pembrokeshire had a gross domestic product per head of population of just under £7,000—less than 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. That figure had dropped from 84 per cent. in 1984.
Fewer than 10 per cent. of those employed in Pembrokeshire are involved in manufacturing activities, compared with 20 per cent. for Wales as a whole. Between 1981 and 1991, manufacturing industries in Pembrokeshire declined by 12.7 per cent. compared with a 7.8 per cent. decline for Wales as a whole. Our mainstay industries of agriculture, tourism, defence establishments and oil have been hit badly. The former Government's closure of defence establishments at RAF Brawdy, Milford mine depot and Royal Naval armaments depot Trecwn led to the loss of hundreds of direct jobs and millions of pounds from our local economy.
The impact of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been devastating for our local farmers; a 1996 study estimated an annual loss of £34 million from the south-west Wales economy as a direct result. In November last year, estimates showed that the Sea Empress oil spillage had cost the tourism and fishing industries about £32.7 million. The most recent blow to the people of west Wales is the news that Gulf oil refinery faces possible closure, with the loss of more than 200 direct jobs and a further 2:1 ratio of indirect jobs.
The whole operation of the Welsh Development Agency, including its industrial locations policy, is of immediate interest and concern to my constituents who are desperate for job opportunities and for investment. Earlier this year, before the general election, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), is reported to have instructed the WDA to point any inward investment to areas of Wales outside the M4 and A55 corridors. Such an instruction should not have been necessary, as the Welsh Development Agency's responsibility is clearly to all of Wales, and not just the south and north-east corners. In fact, the opening paragraph of the chairman's statement in the 1995–96 annual report of the WDA assures us that
the WDA has continued to pursue its mission to promote Wales as the best business climate in Europe by assisting in the growth of quality jobs and competitive industry for the benefit of all the people of Wales.
Unfortunately, we have seen little evidence of that in Pembrokeshire.
Wales requires an economic powerhouse that considers the needs of all areas of Wales—east, west, north, south, urban or rural—without any lines of demarcation. That body would combine the best elements of the WDA with the best elements of the Development Board for Rural Wales in order to cater for the needs of both urban and rural areas of Wales. It should be able to apply the strategy that is most appropriate for the area in which it is working, instead of one strategy or the other in the selective style of the previous Administration.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who represents a Welsh constituency, will be acutely aware of


the frustrations of the people of Wales not just with the industrial locations policy of the WDA, but with the lack of accountability of that organisation. For that reason, I welcome the referendum planned for later this year when the people of Wales will be given an opportunity to say yes to the restoration of democracy within Wales. The expertise of 60 local people in an assembly will ensure that instructions such as that given by the former Secretary of State to the WDA to "go west" are no longer necessary.
Local people know what local people need. The implementation of an element of proportional representation in elections to the Assembly will ensure that people from all localities in Wales have an input—whether the issue is economic development and regeneration, health or education and skills training. The Assembly will not detract from the work of hon. Members in this place or of local government in Wales. It will enhance and complement both and, unlike unaccountable quangos, it will restore the democratic deficit that has increased over the past 18 years—by all accounts, at a cost that is considerably less than that of quangos. It will deliver reduced costs, with democracy for the people of Wales as a bonus.
For the sake of the economic future of my constituency and in order to meet the needs of other areas such as Pembrokeshire that demonstrate problems of both urban and rural deprivation, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider ways of responding effectively to our needs.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) honestly and sincerely on her maiden speech, which was thoughtful and thought provoking. I am confident that she will prove an excellent Member of Parliament and that the people of Preseli Pembrokeshire will be represented very well.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing time for this debate on a matter that is important for the whole of Wales. In the time available, I shall concentrate on the rural parts of Wales. My hon. Friend has assiduously tackled deficiencies in the Welsh Development Agency over the years. He has offered constructive criticism, rather than simply banging away without offering any helpful suggestions. I am sure that the recent change in direction by the agency and the Welsh Office is due in no small measure to my hon. Friend's efforts.
The Welsh Development Agency's success in attracting high-profile new investment, such as LG in Newport, is most welcome. However, the problems of rural areas present a far more difficult scenario. In effect, a single huge job creator in a populous area will sweep away an enormous percentage of the unemployment figures at a stroke. However, the economy in the other 80 per cent. of Wales will remain utterly reliant on the small and medium-sized sector businesses, without which the economy would collapse. It follows, therefore, that it is far more difficult to attract the medium-sized sector to the pockets of unemployment that are prevalent in many parts of rural Wales.
The situation has been exacerbated of late by the scaledown of labour in the agricultural industry. A particularly worrying aspect is the rate of long-term youth

unemployed, which is as high as 33 per cent. in some parts of rural Wales. Addressing that problem must be a priority if we are to build a healthy and viable society in Wales.
It is correct to say that the Welsh economy generally is depressed, with gross domestic product per head at about 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said. Low wages are a feature in many industries. Tourism, which is one of the main employers in Wales, remains largely seasonal despite the efforts of many in the industry to encourage expansion into the so-called "shoulder areas" of the year. Wales must also deal with an inferior transport network—indeed, it is hardly a network at all.
Rural Wales is characterised by a population comprising a high proportion of elderly people with a lower proportion of under-45s. Population growth in rural Wales is due largely to the in-migration of mainly elderly people and, as a consequence, service delivery is more costly per head. In addition, the settlement pattern of rural Wales is under threat. Characteristically, Wales has always had a network of small market towns which frequently serve a catchment area of many miles. In the past five years, we have seen a huge growth in the number of large stores—such as supermarkets and hypermarkets—in those towns. They are seeing off the smaller retailers, one by one.
I was among those who called consistently for policy planning guidance notes 6 and 13 to be introduced in Wales without delay. The Welsh Office, under the tenureship of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), sat on the documents for 12 months after they were introduced in England by the Department of the Environment. During that time, large retail outlets sprang up like mushrooms over huge swathes of rural Wales. We must now come to terms with the consequences of those events.
In seeking to address the particular problems associated with the economic and socio-economic planning for Wales, the Welsh Office should develop a rural strategy, which was so eloquently propounded by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I consider that we have lessons to learn from the English model, a rural affairs commission similar to that model might be part of the answer. The fact is that the problems of rural Wales are broad based. They never present one single answer, but beg several. A body that brings together all the problem areas and addresses them would be most welcome.
What I have just said will inevitably be taken as a criticism of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but, in truth, the board has performed fairly well within what many of us consider to be a far too limited remit. I recognise that the board has considerable expertise in encouraging growth in the rural economy, but its powers and obligations should be extended. There is no justification for cutting its budget, even if that means thousands of new jobs for the Newport area. I call on the Government to reinstate the board's budget and to extend its remit so that it is better able to fulfil its statutory purpose and obligation to assist in improving
the economic and social welfare of the people in mid Wales.
The recent market town initiative is most welcome, but I ask the Minister to look again at what the board can offer existing businesses to help them expand. That must be the


key to any strategy. I believe that that offers far more potential even than attracting further inward investment. A thorough appraisal of ways in which to invigorate rural Wales and redress its further decline is long overdue.
We need improved public transport, and initiatives such as post buses are most welcome. Our rural post offices and shops are a vital resource. Although some recent rate relief was introduced, further initiatives must be sought. Capital grants must be introduced to assist businesses in rural areas. Support for all rural businesses, be they general stores, garages, public houses or whatever, should be considered, because they are key resources. Any business failure in those sectors inevitably has a serious knock-on effect throughout rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon referred to information technology and the need to cable up Wales. That is of paramount importance if Wales is to have a truly prosperous future. I believe that time is of the essence, as Wales has great potential for attracting telematic-based firms in rural areas.
One of the particular problems in rural Wales is the need to link up indigenous businesses. Due to the far sightedness of several individuals in my constituency there is a contract shop for connecting businesses. In the past, businesses typically had to import raw materials from the west midlands, but they now find that those same materials are available at a competitive rate within the constituency. Such an initiative is extremely important. I also echo what my hon. Friend said about the transport of goods and people.
We need to think carefully about encouraging real diversification in agriculture. If that means a relaxation of planning procedure, so be it. The national park within which I live must be a living, breathing and expanding area where the communities can live and prosper. We need to redouble our efforts to assist our market towns. Environmental improvements such as those undertaken by the WDA at Llanrwst and currently at Dolgellau are fine as far as they go, but we need to make it more attractive to people to start up in business. We need to remind people that rural Wales has some world market leaders within it. If they can succeed, a new business will also succeed. A far more radical and all-embracing policy is required so that all the key players in rural regeneration are singing from the same hymn sheet.
We have a wonderful quality of life in rural Wales. People must recognise our determination to ensure that businesses prosper. At the moment, I fear that that message is not getting through. I also fear that a drastic rethink is necessary to make Wales, in particular its rural areas, a haven for business start-ups and expansion.
I trust that when the Welsh Assembly is set up it will concentrate on the dire need to refocus and simplify the various efforts to achieve rural regeneration. I believe that the Assembly would be an excellent forum for that and a catalyst for true forward thinking about what is good for Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: What a happily consensual debate this has been. It is one in which people who represent different parts of Wales have sought to consider constructively its problems and propose solutions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on his timely choice for debate because, at the start of a new Parliament, I believe that we are pushing at an open door. I know that when the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), replies, he will fully understand the problems and will seek to address them constructively.
I also want to commend warmly the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), which was a model of its kind. During the election campaign, I had the privilege of being twinned with Preseli, and my wife and I spent a happy two weeks there at the start of the campaign. I can certainly underscore what my hon. Friend said about the deprivation in her constituency. At one stage, I thought that there was a new candidate standing for election because of the number of boards displaying the name Halifax. That is some indication of the pressures that that constituency has faced due to a combination of factors associated with the oil industry, defence cuts, BSE and other problems that my hon. Friend described so graphically. I know that she will be a worthy successor not only to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who used to represent the northern part of her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), who used to represent the major part of it.
The broad theme of all the contributions has been the same—yes, the Welsh Development Agency has had some successes, but there have also been some major failures. That cannot be laid at its door, because as its name implies, it is an agent and there is a principal behind it—the Welsh Office. By its policies, the Welsh Office has allowed the divide between the more prosperous and less prosperous areas of Wales to increase. In part, that is due to its failure to use the instruments that are available to it, but, worse than that, it has increased the locational advantages of south-east and north-east Wales. Effectively, its policy has been one of failure by omission to use certain instruments to attract developments to those areas that need it. Worse than that, by its policies it has increased the disadvantages of certain areas—disadvantages that have already been described.
I do not intend to ask the Under-Secretary to visit the areas in question because he knows them well. We were delighted by his appointment because he will be a powerful advocate within the Welsh Office for the type of policies that we have mentioned. My hon. Friend need only look at the relevant statistics gathered by the Welsh Office concerning population movement and other demographic factors such as the aging population, the number of young people who leave Wales and the decline in the population in certain areas. They speak for themselves.
The statistics on poverty show how earnings have declined. In my part of south-west Wales, for example, earnings used to be well above the Welsh average because of highly paid steel jobs at Port Talbot, but we are now well below it. That has been a feature of the economic development in south-west and north-west Wales. Other statistics, which relate to economic activity and the comparative financial advantages of certain areas, also speak for themselves. Under the Redwood era, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon has said, the figures were astonishing. Over three years, I think, the Cardiff Bay


development corporation was given by way of grant in aid more than twice the budget that the Welsh Development Agency had for the rest of Wales.
Recently, for example, my city of Swansea was trying to attract a well-known consumer business to the city. Swansea was told, "Yes, we may be interested in coming, but you—the city and council—must match the subsidised price of, and other incentives at, Cardiff bay." The city does not have the resources to do that. Playing on the locational advantages of south-east Wales is causing enormous problems.
There is always a temptation in these debates to be parochial and to get a quick headline in the local newspaper. We must recognise, however, that Cardiff is the flagship. It is the capital of Wales and should be treated accordingly. We must recognise the locational advantages—

Mr. Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that partnership between the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies, such as central Government, is essential if we are effectively to create the jobs that we need, especially in the Swansea area? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the WDA let us down extremely badly recently when, having promised us money for the Technium project, the science park at Penllergaer, which is just outside my hon. Friend's constituency, the money was pulled away, along with European money that was already guaranteed? That money went back to south-east Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was regional policy in reverse?

Mr. Anderson: Yes, precisely that. My hon. Friend has produced an extremely good case study. As he says, it is regional policy in reverse. Money was pledged for the science park at Penllergaer. The project involved using the expertise of the local university in a way that the hon. Member for Caernarfon was suggesting. At the 11 th hour, however, the money was taken away by the WDA and assigned to the Cardiff area. It was an astonishing decision, and I hope that my hon. Friend will use it as a case study.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of other examples in the Neath area of regional policy in reverse. Money goes to areas that are already relatively prosperous, its having been taken from areas that are not prosperous. That must be examined.
I adopt all that has been said about proportions. I understand very much what has been said about the deathbed repentance of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) a few months before the general election. The right hon. Gentleman saw the writing clearly on the wall. He said, "I have sinned. My policy has been wrong. Oh Lord, what I would like to do is as follows." That policy has been set down and I re-pose the question asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon: will the Welsh Office pick up the challenge?
I am talking not of the theoretic undertakings of the previous Secretary of State but of a firm commitment that the investment targets for the WDA will be entirely recast with emphasis being given to the more deprived areas, such as areas west of the golden corridors of the A55 and M4. I want to see that broad commitment accepted in principle. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in whom we have enormous confidence and think of as the advocate

of the areas outside the more prosperous areas of Wales, give us an indication of the ways in which the Welsh Office intends to act? What instruments does it propose to use? I hope that my hon. Friend will underline that we have a new and reforming Government who are prepared to use all the available instruments for Wales as a whole.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on making an excellent maiden speech. I have a considerable Pembroke ancestry in my blood and I appreciated what she said.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has initiated the debate. I congratulate the Minister, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. In constituency terms, he is my next-door neighbour.
I shall endeaivour to make a succinct speech in drawing attention to a number of areas of strategy that are important for the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Various Secretaries of State have used the WDA as the engine of economic development in Wales. That is especially true of the tenure of Peter Walker, one of the better Conservative Secretaries of State, in the mid-1980s. The problem is that locational development has been unequal, with the result that there is a divide. There are many who say that there is little economic development in south Wales west of Bridgend, and there is some truth in that. There is a similar divide in north Wales along the A55.
We have a problem in the western valleys and we have enormous problems in south-west and north-west Wales. There are problems in rural areas. We are in danger, however, of forgetting mid-Wales, which is a huge chunk of the country. There is a great deal of discussion about what goes on in north Wales and south Wales, but the problems of mid-Wales are substantial. Those problems are undoubtedly the result of poor infrastructure. It is unpopular these days to talk about road developments and I would not advocate motorways running throughout Wales, but some improvements to the A470 and A483, especially in the Brecon and Radnor constituency, and in Powys in general, would improve north-south communications and assist economic development without wrecking the environment.
The difficulties facing the rural economy, with up to 25 per cent. of those involved depending on employment that is connected with agriculture, should not be underestimated. The problems of BSE and cuts in the green pound are taking farm incomes down to even lower levels.
We in mid-Wales are especially concerned about the Development Board for Rural Wales and the interface between the DBRW and the WDA in the location of investment. It is vital that the DBRW continues. There is a feeling in mid-Wales that perhaps its days are numbered. I ask the Minister to ensure that it continues. Indeed, it should be developed and given more powers. The problems facing agriculture should be addressed more clearly by the board. Legislation should be introduced to ensure that that happens.
The boundaries of the DBRW should be coterminous with the objective 5b area of the European Union in Wales. There may be a case for extending the board's boundaries.
Many upland farms in Wales produce incomes of £10,000 a year or less. With the green pound devaluation and the halving of ewe premiums, incomes could fall to £5,000 per family. There is a great need to provide employment in rural areas to ensure that members of farming families have alternative employment and an alternative income. That means that economic development must be pushed through to many of the more remote rural areas to ensure that employment opportunities exist.
With the advent of a Welsh Assembly, which we all hope and trust will be set up, there is a great need to make up the democratic deficit. We certainly need a rural strategy that includes not only the WDA but the DBRW, the farming unions and the rural counties of Wales—and not only a policy, but a Welsh Office Minister, devoted entirely to the needs of rural areas. Then there could be a coherent strategy for employment and location.
The needs of rural Wales are great and I should like the Minister to assure us that the DBRW will continue to develop, that its budget will not be cut, as has happened over the past 12 months, and that it will be given a fair deal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): This has been what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) appropriately described as a happily consensual debate. It is not hard to discover why, when we look at all the empty green Opposition Back Benches where Conservative Members would normally be sitting.

Mr. Nick Aingeir: Where are they?

Mr. Hain: There are none left, because they were wiped out in Wales. That is why we can now, at last, tackle the real issues there, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whom I congratulate on securing the debate.
The hon. Gentleman raised several important issues that are right at the top of the Government's agenda for Wales. He also made some apt and sharp observations about the call centres and the need to ensure that a broad-band telecommunications network extends right across into north-west Wales. I shall write to him about that, and perhaps we can have a dialogue later.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on an excellent maiden speech. In fact, I am somewhat jealous because I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, was her twin at the election—not that she needed our help, because she secured a bumper majority.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about her constituency, which is indeed beautiful. I have good reason to know that, having visited Skomer island with her on Sunday. However, as she eloquently explained, that beauty masks much unemployment and serious economic and structural problems, which the Government will seek to address, but which the Tory Government so shamefully neglected.
To be successful, the Welsh Development Agency needs a clear framework of strategic guidance from the Government, incorporating specific targets on job creation—the levering in of private sector investment, the reclamation of derelict land and the generation of new business for Welsh firms.
The WDA's industrial location policy is based on the economic case for promoting inward investment in Wales—and it has been most successful. The new Labour Government are determined to build on that success.
However, it has been easier to attract inward investors to the south-east and the north-east of Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon about that, and we now need to redress the balance between east and west Wales, and between the south and the north. We are also determined, as the hon. Gentleman said, to locate investment up the valleys. I agree with him there, too.
We must be clear that getting investors into Wales, rather than specifying exactly where in Wales they should go, is the absolute priority. There is stiff competition from other regions of Britain and we simply must offer the best package possible. I do not think that there will be any disagreement about that. If that means having 6,000 LG jobs in Newport, or not having them at all, I am sure that we would all agree that the answer is self-evident. So, while I am second to nobody in my desire to spread prosperity westwards off the M4 and A55 corridors, I also ask for hard-headed realism from everybody in that respect.

Mr. Caton: While my hon. Friend is talking about moving investment westwards, will he join me in recognising the excellent work done by the WDA as the lead partner in developing the Felindre old steelworks site in my constituency, close to the boundary with his own? That must now be one of the premier inward investment sites in Britain, and probably in the whole of Europe.

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I assure him that the Government are doing all that we can to ensure that we get major investment in what he rightly calls a premier site.
Foreign direct investment has been, and continues to be, a vital source of new employment opportunities. For this year, the agency has the target of creating or safeguarding 12,500 jobs, almost two thirds of which—8,000 jobs—will come from inward investment. Half those new jobs will be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.
The benefits are not limited to jobs. Overseas companies have brought new skills, new technologies and new products that have been of wider benefit to the Welsh economy. For example, home-grown firms have entered the supply chains of the overseas companies, thus creating and safeguarding further jobs. The new arrivals have also been able to learn from our businesses, so the benefits have flowed both ways.
We must look forward as well as back. The Welsh economy today faces challenges very different from those of 20 years ago.

Mr. Wigley: Before the Minister moves on to the general forward-looking bit of his speech, may I underline


what I said earlier about the guidelines issued by the Welsh Office on 19 March, which said:
The targets set out below"—
that is, with regard to how many of the jobs should be outside the two pockets—
reflect this and the Agency is expected to recognise, within the UK and EC limits, the extra costs of locating in areas outside of the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.
That is deliberately specified, to try to attract companies that would otherwise want to go to those pockets—although, of course, as the Minister said, we would not want to lose them altogether. Presumably, that means giving some inducements to meet the extra costs. Can the Minister tell the House what the mechanism for doing that will be?

Mr. Hain: We have a delicate balance to strike here, and we intend to use all the levers available both to the WDA and to the new Government to ensure that we get extra investment in north-west Wales. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would rather leave it at that at the moment.
It is also vital—

Mr. Martiyn Jones: I am sorry to spoil my hon. Friend's flow, but I have here some figures from the Library, obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), which suggest that employment and inward investment in north-west Wales are not quite as bad as they were portrayed earlier. There were 1,500 jobs in Anglesey and Gwynedd, and 4,700 in Wrexham and Flintshire.
The real problem area seems to lie in between, in Denbighshire and Conwy, where only 400 jobs were created last year. That is probably something to do with whether the local authorities are submitting projects to the WDA. Will my hon. Friend say something about those problems?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The duty Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), muttered to me earlier from a sedentary position that there was high unemployment in Cardiff, too. Indeed, there is, but we do not want to get into a competitive auction. We must seek to do the best for all parts of Wales, and I think that there will be unity on that subject among Members here today.
The issue, however, is the imbalance of inward investment. The hon. Member for Caernarfon made a valid case.

Dr. John Marek: Can my hon. Friend consider the problems caused in north-east Wales. too? A Western Mail article by Darren Waters quotes the Secretary of State as commenting on the appointment of the new WDA chief executive, Mr. Willott, as follows:
I want to see more jobs created in the Valleys and in the western and north-western parts of Wales. I want a new focus on the growth of existing businesses".
Of course, that leaves out Cardiff, which is central to the concerns of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, and leaves out north-east Wales, too.
The Secretary of State also left out the area described by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), the Vale of Clwyd and the areas in between.
The Minister would do a service for all of us in Wales if he gave a categorical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. He is making a speech, rather than an intervention.

Dr. Marek: May I finish my sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may go no further.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) speaks eloquently for his constituency. It is a matter not of taking jobs away from north-east Wales, but of ensuring that the imbalance is corrected and that we have an investment strategy that supports all parts of Wales. More jobs will be created in north-east Wales.
I am pleased to make an announcement that will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Comtek Electronics and Lasar Cutting Services are bringing new jobs to north-east Wales. Their projects will create almost 100 new jobs, involve the investment of more than £2.5 million extra finance, and will be welcome additions to the communities in north-east Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench and congratulate him on that announcement and on the hard-headed, realistic way in which those jobs have been steered towards my constituency. They are much needed, because we have considerable long-term unemployment. We also have Deeside industrial park, which we need because we are still coping with the consequences of losing 8,000 steel jobs. I thank the Minister most sincerely.

Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend. One of the reasons why such investment has come to north-east Wales is his diligence on behalf of his constituents.
It is vital that Welsh goods and services are competitive at home and abroad. With Wales exporting twice as much as it imports, it is truly part of the global economy, and we must pay particular attention to our key markets in Europe. Indeed, many United States, Japanese, European and now Korean companies chose to set up in Wales to service the European market. The Government's positive approach to Europe was triumphantly shown in the early hours of this morning by the outcome of the Amsterdam summit. That will provide existing and potential investors with further confidence that Wales is the right place from which to do business in Europe.
Inward investment is, therefore, an important component of the globalisation of the Welsh economy. However, we are pressing for a fairer distribution of inward investment throughout Wales, particularly in west and north-west Wales, but also in the south Wales valleys.
I underlined the importance that I attach to inward investment when I met Mr. Joseph Jun, the European President of LG, together with his colleagues, Mr. C. B. Kim and Mr. S. H. Kim, two days ago. I was impressed


with their dynamism and they expressed confidence in the partnership approach that the new Labour Government and their agencies are providing. We agreed that we would like as many LG suppliers as possible to locate in Wales, up the valleys and northward and westward. That could bring a further 15,000 quality jobs. Of the 48 companies so far identified as suitable suppliers to LG, 19 are in south Wales, six are in west Wales and two in north Wales. There is potential for the whole of Wales, and we shall work hard to ensure that the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office have the right strategy.
The Welsh Development Agency's strategic target for the number of jobs created or safeguarded outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors was increased for 1997–98 from 20 to 50 per cent. of its overall target of 12,500 jobs. I strongly endorse that target.
The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made powerful points about the state of the rural economy in Wales. The Government are conscious of that problem and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would welcome discussions with hon. Members who represent rural areas in Wales to agree on a concerted approach. I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about post offices, which play a vital role in rural communities.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister assure us that the Government's policy is the same as that stated by the present Secretary of State on 10 February? He said that he had no plans to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales. Is that still the Government's policy?

Mr. Hain: We recognise that the Development Board for Rural Wales performs an important job, and we want to ensure that there remains a strong rural focus in economic and investment activity. We are reviewing all the quangos in Wales, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect us to, given the loss of public confidence in quangos. The DBRW is obviously one of those that we are reviewing.
I expect the Development Board for Rural Wales to give priority to the west of its area. At least 55 per cent. of its programme expenditure will be concentrated in that area by 1999–2000 and we expect that at least 40 per cent. of the jobs to be created this year will be outside Powys, increasing to 40 per cent. by the millennium.

Mr. Dafis: I am sure that the Minister recognises, as we all do, that higher education—both teaching and research—has a key role to play in revitalising the Welsh economy. He will also be aware that there is deep concern and some bitterness in higher education circles in Wales about the way in which its funding has been cut, which has put it at a serious disadvantage compared with higher education in England. Some of those cuts have been made because of the need to provide significant sums, especially for the LG project. Is that not an example of the imbalance in industrial development strategy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions in this debate are very long.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) makes important points, which will be taken into account.
Both the WDA and the DBRW fully recognise the importance of this push to the west and north-west, and both agencies are represented on the North Wales economic forum, which has an important role in co-ordinating these efforts in the region. I look forward to the launch of the new South-West Wales economic forum, which will play a similar role. I think that that will deal with many of the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire, for Swansea, East and for Gower (Mr. Caton). The Secretary of State and I will shortly be meeting the North Wales economic forum, with which we want to work closely in regenerating north Wales.
All partners should work closely together to ensure that each region and area of Wales is able to maximise its potential for attracting investment. I will be working to ensure that Wales gets the best deal from any review of the assisted areas map. It is essential that we proceed on that.
However, the most important component of all is the right people with the right skills, as LG's senior managers stressed to me on Monday. The people of Wales are our biggest asset. They are the reason why Wales has been so successful, and that drives the WDA's efforts to bring jobs and projects to Wales. We are keen to upgrade the skills level in the Welsh work force still further. But we need not only a highly skilled work force: it also has to be the most flexible.
There are formidable challenges ahead if Wales is to preserve its position as one of the leading locations for investment in Europe. Our partners in the European Union are now more alive to the benefits of inward investment than they were five or certainly 10 years ago. The economic reforms in eastern Europe make those countries formidable competitors for global investment. Recently in my own constituency, Lucas shifted 500 assembly line jobs from Neath to Poland where wage costs were 60 per cent. cheaper. The only way Wales can rise to this challenge is by being the best—not necessarily the cheapest, but the best. To be the best, we must have the most skilled and flexible work force and be at the leading edge of technological advance.
Our strategy must include rationalising or abolishing quangos and making them more democratically accountable to a new Welsh Assembly. That will strengthen existing partnerships, especially with local government. We want more power and decision making to be devolved to the regions of Wales. That will help to spread inward investment more evenly across the whole of Wales.
We want closer ties between the companies that choose to invest in Wales and the communities that will serve them, so as to boost the prospects of the rural and more remote parts of Wales, which are a priority for the Government.
If inward investment is crucial, so, too, is in-Wales investment. The development of home-grown firms is more important than ever before. Most of the jobs growth in modern economies is in small and medium-sized


businesses. I shall meet the North Wales Federation of Small Businesses tomorrow to discuss how the Government can support its activity.
I have also asked the WDA and Welsh Office officials, and the other institutional agencies, to discuss how we can advance the proposals for a new economic powerhouse that will be contained in our White Paper on devolution next month. Businesses and their workers in Wales need a Welsh Assembly to give them a real voice in winning new jobs and investment opportunities; otherwise, Wales will fall behind.
This has been an important debate. The consensus demonstrated in it should now be built on, and a new Welsh Assembly should be formed to secure the extra investment, economic activity and jobs to ensure that Wales becomes a world-beating economy.

Bosnia

Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—who will reply to the debate—on his appointment. He and I have fought shoulder to shoulder on human rights issues in the past, not least in regard to Nigeria. I know that his response will be informed both by personal concern to resolve the human rights tragedy that is Bosnia and by the Government's wider concern to secure peace and stability in that part of Europe. Indeed, the one cannot be achieved without the other.
I do not intend to make a long speech. As I anticipated, the debate has attracted some interest among other hon. Members, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of those who, unlike me, have direct and personal experience of Bosnia.
I am pleased to have secured a debate on Bosnia now. It is nearly a year since the House last had a substantive debate on the subject, and we are evidently at a crucial moment in international decision making on the future of the country. In 12 months' time, the mandate of SFOR, the stabilisation force, runs out, and discussions are under way between Governments on its future. I shall argue strongly in favour of the maintenance of a large and powerful international military force in Bosnia. I know of no observer of the Bosnian scene who believes that withdrawal would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the region. I shall also argue, however, not only that the international force should stay but that its mandate should be widened as quickly as possible to allow it to undertake more direct responsibility to support the civil agenda of the Dayton agreement.
There are other reasons why this is the right time for a review of the international community's role and SFOR's mandate in Bosnia. In Britain and France—two of the three main military contributors to SFOR—we now have new centre-left Governments, who might reasonably be expected to take a more positive stance on human rights in Bosnia. At the end of this week, the new United Nations high representative, Carlos Westendorp, assumes his responsibilities. On 24 June, the international donor conference will meet, with the aim of raising £1 billion in economic aid for Bosnia. It is essential for that conference to commit itself absolutely to the principle of conditionality in the aid package. In other words, aid should be disbursed only as a condition of the implementation of the civil agenda of Dayton by the Bosnian entities.
We are also in the run-up to the municipal elections in Bosnia, which are set for 13 and 14 September. The 1996 legislative elections, also conducted under the supervision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, were deeply flawed, particularly in relation to the right of displaced persons to vote in their place of origin. The OSCE is now asking for, and receiving, additional funds to oversee the elections. It claims that it is only approving candidates who make a declaration of acceptance of the Dayton peace agreement, but that claim needs to be validated. There must be renewed efforts to give voting rights to displaced persons, and the OSCE's work must be subject to intense international scrutiny. It is vital for the municipal elections to meet acceptable


international standards, in a way in which the Croatian elections—also monitored by the OSCE this week—evidently did not.
The final and most important reason why this is the right time to review the direction of international policy and the role of SFOR is the evidence of a renewed American commitment in Bosnia. Just over two weeks ago, when she visited Bosnia, the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, suggested that the United States was in Bosnia for the long haul, and left open the possibility that some American troops could remain there after next summer. I hope that the British Government will welcome and encourage those indications of continuing US involvement, which would be best served by a continuing US presence on the ground in the form of combat troops. If, however, the United States will not lead on the ground after mid-1998, it is essential for the major European powers to plan now for their own force in Bosnia for as long as it takes to fulfil the Dayton objectives.
It is right and proper to recognise the important achievements of both the original international force, IFOR, and its successor, SFOR, in fulfilling the military objectives of Dayton. The ceasefire was effected, and has been sustained. In some areas, there has been a transfer of authority. A zone of separation has been created, and the inter-entity boundary has been effectively patrolled and policed. I pay tribute to the thousands of British troops who have played their full part in those achievements.
A number of other military aspects of the Dayton agreement remain unfulfilled, however. De-mining has yet to begin in earnest. It is acknowledged, in the present circumstances, that further progress in implementing the sub-regional arms control agreement will be difficult, with Republika Srpska continuing to resist its obligation to destroy large numbers of tanks and heavy weaponry. The critical weakness in Bosnia, however, has been the near-total failure on the civil agenda of the Dayton peace agreement: the establishment of national institutions, freedom of the media, freedom of movement and, above all, the return of the refugees and the arrest of the war criminals.
The scale of the continuing refugee disaster in Bosnia was described in a recent report by the international crisis group entitled "Going Nowhere Fast". In the 16 months since the Dayton peace agreement came into force, only about 250,000 refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes, almost exclusively to areas where they form part of the majority group. In the same period, a further 80,000 people have been displaced, largely during the transfer of territory between the two entities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, some 750,000 people remain displaced, of whom roughly 450,000 are in the federation and 300,000 in Republika Srpska.
It is important to understand that, in seeking solutions to the refugee crisis in Bosnia, we are seeking solutions for Muslim and Serb refugees alike. Nor should we forget the 160,000 Croat refugees who have sought refuge in Croatia, and who are part of a Bosnian refugee diaspora which numbers 250,000 refugees in the Federal Republic of Serbia and 315,000 in Germany. To add to the crisis, in late 1996 the western European states, starting with Germany, began proceedings to deport Bosnian refugees.
As a consequence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expects up to 200,000 refugees, half of them from Germany, to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina this year. Unless action is taken now to enforce the return home of refugees, the total number of refugees and displaced persons in Bosnia will grow to nearly 1 million by the end of 1997. The situation is getting worse, not better 
That further build-up of refugees will mean more human misery and greater political tension, especially in the federation area. Of course, there are physical obstacles to the return of the refugees, such as the destruction of property and infrastructure. Those must be dealt with by the international aid programme, and it goes without saying that all housing and infrastructure reconstruction programmes must be linked to the return of minorities.
The major impediment to the return of refugees is the continuance in power of the nationalist authorities and, in some places, of indicted or suspected war criminals. It is unrealistic to leave the responsibility for guaranteeing the security of returning minorities to local authorities, many of whom ethnically cleansed them from their respective regions in the first place. That is why, first, the international community needs to ensure that there are far more human rights monitors on the ground to oversee and facilitate the return process.
If what the international crisis group describes as the "vicelike grip" of the nationalist parties is to be broken to help minorities go back to their homes, the issue of war crimes has to be tackled head on, and those indicted by the international tribunal for former Yugoslavia must be arrested, surrendered to the tribunal at The Hague and prosecuted. Of 75 indicted war criminals in all parts of Bosnia, only nine have been arrested and two prosecuted so far. More than 50 remain at large in Republika Srpska. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are both charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. While such men remain at large and their apparent immunity from arrest confers continuing legitimacy on the ethnic cleansers, there will be no return of refugees.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The question arises, who will do the arresting in that situation? It will not be easy.

Mr. Hill: On this, as on most issues, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a difficult issue and one which I shall address later.
I greatly welcome the Minister of State's recent strong affirmation of support for the international tribunal at his meeting with its president, Judge Cassese, on 10 June. My hon. Friend was right to say:
Effective implementation of the Dayton agreement will continue to be severely undermined so long as those indicted for horrific war crimes remain free.
However, it is unrealistic to expect the Bosnian authorities to surrender them, because, all too often, these are the very people who are inculpated in the same crimes. In practice, only the international authorities and, specifically, the military authorities can affect these arrests. Nobody who has read the weekly human rights updates from the office of the high representative can help but he impressed by its extensive intelligence about human rights abuses in all parts of Bosnia.
As for the military, the soldiers know when Karadzic is in his villa, they know the roads that he uses and they recognise him when he goes through their checkpoints.


They are in a position to arrest him, and that is why I say that either SFOR must interpret its existing mandate more robustly or its mandate must be extended immediately to include the arrest of war criminals. Moreover, I suspect that that is the direction in which thinking in the international community is already moving.
The retiring high representative, Karl Bildt, has made clear his belief that at some point military force will be needed to deliver the war criminals to The Hague. His successor, Carlos Westendorp, has said that every effort must be made to bring them to the court and that he is examining new ways and means of producing results. I note that, at the end of this week, the Assembly of the Council of Europe will carry a resolution calling on SFOR to take immediate action to apprehend and transfer indicted persons to the international court.
Of course, such moves will carry risks, and I have no desire to underestimate them, but risks also result from inaction. If there is no individual accountability for war crimes and no return of displaced persons, who can doubt that a Palestinian mentality will develop among young Muslims, with the likelihood of a return to war in 10 or 15 years? Accepting the status quo of effective partition, which is likely in its turn to encourage moves to further rationalisation of frontiers, would be the least stable option.
SFOR must stay. Its withdrawal in present circumstances would be unthinkable. However, it must do more than just hold the ring. It could hold it for ever if nothing happened inside it, and we all know that the international community would not be willing to keep troops there indefinitely, with all the likely consequences of recurring conflict in the region. To ensure that a term is set for the presence of troops in Bosnia, SFOR must take action now to bring the indicted war criminals to trial and to create a secure environment for the return of refugees.
In their excellent mission statement, the Government have said that they will put human rights at the heart of their foreign policy. We are in a powerful position to do that in Bosnia by playing our full part in the implementation of the civil agenda of the Dayton peace agreement.

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, which some months ago would have seemed a somewhat unlikely scenario. Events in Bosnia do not appear much in our newspapers or on our television screens, but that does not mean that the war is over. More likely, it is like a cancer in remission which may renew itself.
Looking back on that terrible period of three and a half years and the diplomacy that limped alongside it, I was sometimes left with the impression that we were watching a symbolic action, half-measures that were intended only to keep the war off the front page no matter how many people it was killing out of sight. It was Band-Aid diplomacy and it did not work.
I think that we have learnt some lessons: there is no point in enduring such ordeals unless we do. The United Nations now has a lessons-learned department. Perhaps in our minds we, too, should have such a department. There are two lessons that I shall mention at this time when we must look ahead to the continuation of SFOR or, if the

worst happens, SFOR walking away. One of the lessons is that in the Balkans force prevails. It was the force of the Serbs which prevailed against the Muslims at the start of the war, and the force of the Croats which prevailed against the Serbs at the end of the war. The force of IFOR imposed a kind of peace.
What is important is not so much the structure of the force as its attitudes. When IFOR came in on 21 December 1991, it did so with exactly the same troops and equipment as had previously been assigned to the United Nations protection force—the UN force that failed. The extra tanks, artillery and troops had not yet arrived. The significant issues were the changes in command, in attitude and in helmets from the blue of the United Nations to the camouflage of IFOR.
The other lesson that we have learnt or must learn is that just as actions have consequences, so has inaction. Decisions that were rolled over, deferred or delayed from one meeting to another of the Security Council or the Council of Ministers cost lives. I was close to the situation on the ground and it seemed to me that the problem did not relate to conspiracy or evil interference from outside; it was a problem of indifference. How else do we account for the bombardment of Vukovar and Dubrovnik in November 1991 without penalty? How else do we account for the European Community decision in December 1991 unilaterally to recognise Croatia, although the likely effect of that in igniting a war in Bosnia had been accurately predicted by Lord Carrington and by Mr. Perez de Cuellar, who was then in his closing days as the distinguished Secretary-General of the United Nations? I just note that the British concession to the Germans on the issue of the recognition of Croatia came within days of the German concession to the British on the opt-out clauses of the Maastricht treaty. Historians will one day have something to say about that.
Again, in these past few days in Amsterdam, we have properly been concerning ourselves with events at the heart of Europe, but let us not forget events at the rim of Europe. There were livelihoods at stake in Amsterdam; there are lives at stake in Bosnia. We now have to discuss the composition of SFOR and possibly its renewal and even its walking away. It is reasonable to suppose that the heavy weapons, the tanks and the heavy artillery pieces can now be withdrawn. They are high-impact weapons and they do not make much difference to the overall mix of forces, but I am convinced that, if SFOR goes, the war will start again and the partition of Bosnia will become permanent.
We should take note of what has been achieved, yes, by the United Nations, the discredited UN. By my estimate, it saved 100,000 lives; 100,000 people would be dead but for the bravery of UN troops, who pushed their mandate to the limit and beyond, and risked their lives to save those people. I pay tribute also to the dedicated soldiers of IFOR and SFOR. Having been close to them for all those years, I have come out with a profound admiration for the British Army, which I would now call, from what it has done there alone, the best little Army in the world.
So much depends now on the leaderships in Belgrade and in Zagreb and on whether they finally live up to their obligations under the Dayton agreement. The test is simple: will they hand over the suspected war criminals whom they harbour? The international war crimes tribunal is running out of momentum and is short of evidence, money and, most of all, arrested suspects. My hon. Friend


the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) has given the numbers, which are disgraceful. The two men so far convicted were small fry. Only one man in a leadership position is held in custody—Tihomir Blaskic, the former leader of the HVO, the Bosnian-Croat forces in central Bosnia, in the side war among Bosnians, Croats and Muslims from 1993–94.
As I may be a witness in that case, I will have no more to say about it, but I wish to impress on hon. Members my conviction that if one of the leading figures is not arrested within the next six months, the international criminal tribunal will in effect be out of business, with repercussions for years to come. It may be that there was a time for peace with justice, and that was in the spring and summer of 1992, and that now we can have peace or justice but not both.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my hon. Friend for his answer to the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill): who is to do the arresting? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton have any qualms about it? He has great knowledge of this subject, and I put that point as a question rather than as an assertion.

Mr. Bell: I thank my hon. Friend. I distinguish between those suspected war criminals at large in the present Yugoslavia and those in Croatia, where there are fully competent authorities and there is no international force to do the arresting. There are grave risks in arresting the two principal figures we are talking about, which is why I said that we may have to accept that there can be peace or there can be justice, but there cannot be both. It would be a risky and dangerous undertaking and there is no good course of action. All we can hope for is to find the least worst. If the right occasion presents itself, and it would be easier in the case of Karadzic than in that of Mladic, something might be achieved at acceptable risk, but that has to be advised by the competent military authorities on the ground and we have to live with their advice.
What can we do in the House? We can support the peacekeepers and the peacemakers and the clearance of mines. We can continue with perseverance and patience and not give up, and we should never again return to a distracted diplomacy or to the politics of inattention.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the truths of the House of Commons is that someone almost always knows a great deal more about a subject than oneself. Never was that more emphatically true than in my relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) because he is an expert who has educated us all. To be candid, my only reason for speaking is that, over the Whit recess, at their invitation, I visited the Scots Dragoon Guards, my former national service regiment.
I should like to mention my only other contribution on Bosnia. Hansard records me saying this during the speech of the late Julian Amery:
I am listening with fascination, as I have done on many occasions for the past 30 years. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say that to commit troops, albeit with United Nations berets, into that mire, would beg the question: in what circumstances could those troops ever be withdrawn?"—[Official Report, 5 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 471.]

I speak as someone who, perhaps misguidedly and, perhaps in retrospect, wrongly, was against committing British troops into the mire of Yugoslavia. Five years later, having been there, in no way could I do other than support the assertions of my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill) and for Tatton. It would be totally irresponsible to withdraw British troops in the circumstances.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton in saying that inaction as well as action has consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was clear about that and it is doubtless true. Without wishing to create mischief, I should also like to follow something else that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said. He said that it was coincidence—he put it very gently—that Maastricht negotiations coincided with agreement on a quid pro quo on Croatia. Having been there and talked to people, one realises that that recognition caused much of the trouble—not all the trouble, but much of the trouble.
It should be said in the House that Douglas Hurd owes if not us, at least history, some explanation of what happened because I am afraid that history will record that it was a very shabby deal that was extremely expensive in terms of human life and human tragedy.
I also share the profound admiration for the effectiveness of the British Army in this situation, which relates to the other question that I should like to raise. It is not of such a momentous nature as those raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Tatton, but it involves the conditions of British service men. I know that this is not a Foreign Office responsibility—it is a Ministry of Defence responsibility. This country honestly should do its best for those in the service of the UN or NATO in situations such as Bosnia. On Monday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence:
Could the difficult old question of local allowances for our service men in the British Army of the Rhine, who have had to leave their families behind in Fallingbostel or elsewhere, be reconsidered? When they go to Bosnia, they lose the allowances that they had in Germany. Can my right hon. Friend imagine the wry smiles of the men of B squadron of the Scots Dragoon Guards when they learn that the Canadians, with whom they are doing manoeuvres"—
in the Baraci area—
get free telephone calls for as long as they like to Canada, whereas the Scots—
and this goes for all regiments—
telephone calls are financially restricted?
In this day and age and in such circumstances, surely we could do something about telephone calls because troops in dangerous situations deserve the best.
I will not bore the House by quoting all my right hon. Friend's reply, but his last sentence was:
We shall keep these issues under permanent review."—[Official Report, 16 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 5.]
The other issue that I wish to raise relates to local allowances. A married sergeant with no children, living in Germany, receives £11.05 per day. When he is deployed out of theatre, the allowance is £7.39 per day—a reduction of £3.66. It is all very well saying that he does not have the expense of living in Germany, but that is not the whole story because his family remains in Fallingbostel. My understanding is that the expenses for a family are exactly the same, if not more, when the husband is away. It is a minor matter, but I plead with


the Government to consider it. We must behave properly towards our troops, whose work my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Streatham and I greatly admire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton will understand when I say that pictures and descriptions on television or in newspapers cannot convey the horror that is Bosnia. The Scots Dragoon Guards took me to the little village of Geselo, where every house had been systematically and efficiently burnt out. I was told that bodies were systematically and efficiently thrown into the river. It was the eradication of a human community. Until one stands there and sees all that—I do not want to be fanciful, but the proverbial ghost is all around—one cannot imagine the horror of what has happened.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend may be aware that I am an old Bosnia hand. Does he acknowledge that, in addition to the security that has been achieved by IFOR and SFOR, a great deal of vital reconstruction work is taking place? It is a vital element of the Dayton process. Edinburgh Direct Aid, which has volunteers from both my hon. Friend's constituency and mine, is currently involved in reconstructing buildings and making places habitable so that refugees can return to them. It is vital to try to rebuild some sort of civilised society out of the disaster that my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Dalyell: I certainly acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said.
I will not take up any more of the House's time as I have explained my change of mind from five years ago.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: As a member of the North Atlantic Assembly for the past five years, I have been in a unique position to hear first hand, from both the military and high-ranking officials, about the problems facing Bosnia and the problems of implementing the Dayton agreement. I cannot speak with the same experience and eloquence as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I closely followed his work as a journalist in Bosnia and read many of his reports. I agree that someone must take responsibility for the European Union's ill-fated decision to recognise Croatia. History will tell the truth about that shameful episode.
From the beginning, I have believed that Dayton was created out of a desperation to do anything to end the killing. Different roles were assigned to different organisations—for example, NATO was brought in to end the armed conflict. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I was deeply worried about sending in British troops. I do not think that we need to apologise for that because it is an awesome responsibility for a Member of Parliament. I was also deeply worried about NATO's involvement because of certain attitudes towards the Russians. However, at the end of the day diplomacy won and the policy of inclusivity with the Russians has been one of the successes. There has also been some short-term success in bringing the killing to an end and in controlling, to a certain extent, some of the arsenals in accordance with Dayton.
I agree with the views of Catherine Walker, deputy chief of the UNHCR mission in Sarajevo, who earlier this year warned:
The Dayton agreement is only a skeleton, it does not take human nature into account. However, hearts and minds of people do not change so rapidly as Dayton would suppose. The reconstruction of the minds and spirits is very slow and is not really taken care of.
It is a task for not only the civilian organisations but the international community. We must recognise that the healing process will take a very long time.
Any stability that has been established in Bosnia is still fragile and a number of urgent issues must be addressed. For Britain and other NATO members, the question is what would happen if the international forces were withdrawn in 1998. Although the crisis management that NATO implemented has succeeded to an extent, how do we get out of Bosnia? Whenever we send in our troops, I always ask, "How do we withdraw and what do we leave behind?"
We must consider the issues of Bosnia fatigue—the media appear to have lost interest in what is happening in Bosnia—and of public opinion in other countries. How long will the political will to stay in Bosnia remain? One reason why I welcome this debate is that it puts Bosnia back on the agenda. We must be honest about what is happening there and how limited the holding of the line is.
Although the work of the civilian organisations is desperately important, it has been painfully slow and enormous tasks remain. The whole of the former Yugoslavia is moving from a command economy to market-based capitalism, and we need to think about that. There are almost 2 million refugees in the former Yugoslavia, with about 1 million in Bosnia alone. The resources to rebuild that shattered country are scarce. I commend the military for its reconstruction work on schools, on its small-scale infrastructure projects and on getting some of the factories back into operation.
We need to stop ethnic enmities breaking out again. We know that, every now and again, ethnic violence erupts. For example, the Croats attacked the Muslims in Mostar and the Serbs destroyed Muslim homes in Republika Srpska. At one point, I was very concerned about the wholesale attempt to make the Serbs into lepers—the hated people of the former Yugoslavia. That is a tragedy. Of course, the leaders are evil and want locking up, but the people have been subjected to foul propaganda and we should not isolate them. If we do, they will huddle together and follow the same leaders. We should not judge the people; we should have gone over their leaders' heads many years ago and talked to those who want peace. The international community should not have given the leaders the credence that it did.
The police force in Bosnia is a cause of major problems. Some 75 per cent. of all human rights violations in Bosnia are perpetrated by the police, so an international police force is necessary. Annexe 1B of the Dayton agreement mentions arms reduction, which is not going as well as we expected. The last thing we want is more arms entering Bosnia; arms reduction should be at the top of the agenda.
Bosnia, like other parts of the world, has a massive problem with de-mining. That problem should concentrate all our minds. I congratulate the Government on their clear statement on land mines. Nothing heartened me more than that wonderful statement.
We must stop allowing withdrawal in 1998 to dominate the agenda. Karl Bildt and others who are more knowledgeable than I have talked about building bridges, and they do not mean just in the physical sense. Conflict prevention is the dominant need, and we all accept that a return to war is not an option. The international community must adopt that as its main theme.
We must also address the war crimes issue. At the recent North Atlantic Assembly meeting, arguments were put from both sides. One side argued for South African-style reconciliation and the other talked about bringing the war criminals to justice. The hon. Member for Tatton said clearly that Bosnia could have peace or justice, but not both. That may be true, but that dilemma should concentrate our minds. The military know where the criminals are, but perhaps we need to rethink the mandates.
Freedom does not come free, and I pay tribute to our forces in Bosnia. Sixty people have been killed and 350 people wounded since IFOR and SFOR went in. Freedom comes at a cost, but we should not give up because the prize is too great.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but it is important to follow the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and emphasise that the current situation in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is fraught with great danger.
One of the problems of the past six or seven years has been that international media coverage, with the exception of the BBC's, has been dominated by soundbite politics. Soundbites have influenced public opinion by demanding instant solutions to complex problems. We have seen that in Africa and other parts of the world. When CNN cameras are not covering what is happening, many atrocities and human rights abuses are not reported.
The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned a possible choice between peace and justice. That is often the choice in international conflicts. We cannot always get everything we want and the world's problems today are more difficult and complex than they were three or four years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. Solutions that some of us might have put forward four or five years ago are no longer applicable today. Similarly, it is sterile to argue about whether certain actions were right in 1992, 1995 or 1996. However, I share the criticisms of the premature recognition of Croatia, which was of seminal psychological importance in its effect on the Serbs and their feelings about what they perceived as the re-establishment of an Ustashe state and the consequent memories of 1941–44.
Anyone who has talked, as I have, to the Serbian community in this country, including those who fled in 1948, who were mostly monarchists, will know that they feel a deep resentment about the demonisation of their community, religion and culture by the actions undertaken by people with whom they do not agree politically. The Serbian community in this country feels emotionally attached to the Serbian church and its culture, and they feel labelled and blamed, unjustly, for what has been done

by others in their former homeland. Many of the Serbs in this country came from Krajina. They feel a double injustice because they think that the international community has been less firm in dealing with the Croatian Government and what they did to the Serbian population of Krajina than it has been in addressing other aspects of the problem.
In the past few months, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the previous Parliament, I had discussions with all the main players when they visited London, including the three Opposition leaders from Serbia, who are now unfortunately squabbling among themselves. I have had discussions with people from Republika Srpska and the joint presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina and with leading Croat politicians. If one speaks to them all individually, one would believe that a reasonable solution were possible. However, we know from what has happened in former Yugoslavia that the hatreds and historical animosities run very deep. Every conversation has a different historical starting point. The date that people regard as important in their history is what determines their attitudes to today's conflict.
The problem that the international community faces—not only in Bosnia but in Cyprus and other countries with intractable problems—is that the American, CNN-driven, quick-fix solution of sending for the cavalry, going in, sorting it out, pulling out and leaving them to get on with it does not work for complex historic problems. I do not wish to attack Mr. Holbrooke for all his effort and the hours he put in, because he clearly played an important role, but his Dayton fix has not achieved a long-term solution. That will require the work that Karl Bildt has been calling for and the long-term commitment of military forces, internationally trained police forces and civilian reconstruction of the infrastructure.
I strongly criticised events of three or four years ago and said so in the House on several occasions. I thought that we were in danger of approaching the problem from only one side and of being bounced into simple solutions. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—I am grateful for the opportunity to make the point today—that premature withdrawal of the international commitment would be absurd and dangerous. We must send that message loud and clear to the United States. If a country makes a commitment to assist in an international conflict or civil war, the commitment must be long term. It cannot be committed one year and pull out the next. What happens if a country pulls out? Weaponry and complicated equipment are left behind, which, in certain hands, can be major force multipliers in a conflict.
We know that, for the best of motives, the American Administration have tried to create a balance of military forces in Bosnia. There were two ways of accomplishing that. The first was to reduce the forces of all sides, and the second—the method chosen—was to pile in more equipment for one side of the conflict. The net consequence has been the introduction of more armaments into a potential battlefield.
There is a further complication. The international community should be much more vigilant about the efforts of some countries—particularly Iran—to play power politics in the region. It is understandable that Bosnia's Muslims feel that international support is necessary, but it would be extremely dangerous if the


international community were to turn a blind eye to the developments that have occurred over the past two to three years.
We must move cautiously if we are to keep our commitment to the stabilisation force and commit ourselves to long-term support for Bosnia, which may be necessary for as long 10 or 15 years. We have not resolved the situation in Cyprus, which has had a green line for many years. If we do not watch out and act cautiously, all sides in the Bosnian conflict may continue to rearm for a future conflict, in the expectation that international withdrawal will allow them—theoretically, because they will fail—to settle matters one way or the other.
All we have been given is a messy and possibly unworkable compromise, but we will have to live with it. Although it may take many years, we will have to try to change attitudes, rebuild institutions and create trust and dialogue. It is much easier to destroy such things than it is to build them. We must send that message to the United States and elsewhere. Today, I hope that all hon. Members will unite in doing so.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for proposing today's debate and to all hon. Members who have spoken for the very sober tone in which it has been conducted. We are dealing with an issue which runs to the very heart of the Government's commitment on how to conduct our own foreign policy. The issue runs to the heart also of the United Kingdom's moral responsibility in places such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the wider world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has given us a timely opportunity to discuss an issue which, over the past six years, has weighed heavily on the foreign policy agendas of Europe, the United States of America and the wider world. Today, voices have been raised in the House questioning whether those agendas have always had it right. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, although an analysis of the past is important, we must think primarily of the future.
Today—18 months after the signing in Paris of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton, Ohio—Bosnia-Herzegovina stands at a turning point. We must not delude ourselves about what has been achieved. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made the point that an absence of war does not mean that peace has been established. The progress of the past 18 months is important, but we must realise that it is not yet irreversible. On the contrary, the opportunity provided by the international presence in Bosnia is drifting past without progress in some of the most crucial spheres of peace implementation.
We must not underestimate the scale of the transformation in Bosnia. Four years of war caused untold human misery and left a wasteland of death and destruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was absolutely right to say that searching for and designating one ethnic group or another as "the victim", and increasing support for that group, is a tragic mistake. The truth is that there were victims on every side of the conflict and it was a tragedy for every side.
Thanks to the peace agreement, the fighting has stopped and the rival armies have been separated and demobilised. Moreover—although perhaps not quickly enough—the mine fields are being cleared. The elections that have been held, although not perfect, are a crucial first step in the democratic process. Common institutions have been established, and reconstruction is under way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the refugee problem. A quarter of a million refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes. In comparison with the rate of repair after the second world war, for example, the transformation in Bosnia has been dramatic and rapid. My hon. Friend was right, however, to say that by no stretch of the imagination do we yet have the solution right.
The Dayton agreement recognises that Bosnia has essentially split in half, with the Serbs on one side of the confrontation line and the Bosnians and Croats on the other. We should emphasise, however, that the agreement envisages a process of gradual reintegration. The goal is a single Bosnian state, power sharing between the ethnic groups, freedom of movement, reversal of ethnic cleansing and a state in which the return of peace and prosperity will eventually eclipse the divisions of the war years.
The vision of a united and multi-ethnic Bosnia is one to which the Government are and must be firmly attached. We are attached to it not only because it would be morally wrong to reward the abominable ethnic cleansing conducted during the war but because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said—there is no place in today's Europe for the narrow-minded nationalism that would take Bosnia down the road to ethnic partition.
After 18 months, the divisions left by the war are still very much with us and can be illustrated by a few examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the issue of refugees returning. The peace agreement established the right of every refugee to return to his or her home, but that is quite simply not happening. The international community is rebuilding houses for returning refugees, but, before the homes can be occupied, they are burnt down by local thugs and gangsters while the local authorities and police stand idly by.
Every Bosnian citizen should have the right to travel freely around Bosnia, but police checkpoints are being used deliberately to obstruct and harass people exercising that right. It is still not possible to make direct telephone calls from Sarajevo in the Federation to Pale in the Republika Srpska, although they are only a few miles apart. The problem is not technical or caused by a lack of resources—the international community has offered any necessary help—but a political blockage within the Bosnian leadership.
Political control of the media in all areas of Bosnia is at a level that we once associated with the communist regimes of eastern Europe, and it has no place in modern Europe. I could give other examples, but the underlying message is already clear: the cause of peace and the interests of the Bosnian people are being sacrificed at the altar of a divisive political theology.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Minister agree that in view of the genocide—that is the


right word—in Bosnia, the British Government should use all their influence to ensure that the leading criminals are arrested and brought to justice as soon as possible?

Mr. Lloyd: In a word, yes—of course that is right. My hon. Friend raises an issue of fundamental importance. If he will allow me, however, I will deal with it later in my speech.
The Government are not prepared for the current situation of inertia and deliberate obfuscation and obstruction by the Bosnian authorities to drag on. That was the very clear message taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs three weeks ago to the meeting in Sintra, Portugal, of the Peace Implementation Council steering board—the body responsible for overseeing implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. The meeting's outcome was an unequivocal message to the Bosnian authorities to the effect that there was no alternative to the vision of Bosnia conceived at Dayton, that further attempts to prevent that vision from becoming a reality would simply not be tolerated and that the continued support—financial and otherwise—of the international community depended on their commitment to a peaceful and democratic future. The Sintra communiqué makes that message clear and I will present to the House one or two of its key passages.
First, it was stated at Sintra that there is no military option for any party or ethnic group in Bosnia in the future. The war is over—having brought death, destruction, and misery for millions—and no one will be allowed to restart it.
Secondly, there is no partition or secession option available. The idea of a new apartheid in Europe, of ethnically separate mini-states, is unworkable, immoral and cannot be accepted.
Thirdly, no single community in Bosnia can hope to dominate Bosnia's institutions. The peace agreement provides for power sharing on a basis of equality. That is the only possible future for Bosnia, and it is time that it was accepted by all the parties involved.
In essence, the steering board Foreign Ministers at Sintra signalled that their patience with Bosnia's leaders had run its course. Those individuals are prepared to put their own short-term political games and ethnic intolerance above the interests of their citizens, who are some of the poorest and most deprived people in Europe. That is unacceptable, and it will not be accepted.
In future, when any of Bosnia's leaders persist in blocking reintegration, or in pursuing options other than that set out in the peace agreement, the international community will find direct ways of achieving results. That could involve, for example, the suspension of any Bosnian media network or programme which promotes ethnic intolerance and refusing to deal with Bosnian ambassadors who represent just one of Bosnia's constituent peoples rather than the country as a whole. It could also involve the international community taking action to unify the telephone systems. It will certainly mean denying economic reconstruction assistance to those who consistently fail to meet their peace agreement obligations.
The Government are already putting the tough new stance into action. We have made it absolutely clear to the Bosnian Serbs that we are not prepared to tolerate

their attempts to backtrack on commitments to economic legislation made at Sintra. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has sent extremely tough messages to both President Krajisnik and President Milosevic, emphasising the need for rapid agreement to the legislative package now under consideration by Bosnia's central institutions. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, I can say that in the absence of agreement, all funds pledged for the Republika Srpska at the forthcoming World Bank and European Commission donor conference will be frozen.
The decisions taken by the steering board Foreign Ministers at Sintra gave new impetus to the process of peace implementation, and the momentum created must not be lost. It is up to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to seize the chance that they have been given to rebuild their country on the basis of tolerance, democracy, respect for human rights and reconciliation, enabling it to move slowly but surely towards the European mainstream.
One aspect of non-implementation of the peace agreement, however, requires particular attention and condemnation—that of war crimes indictees. Thanks to the efforts of a courageous and committed group of journalists in Bosnia during the Bosnian war, we learned about the appalling crimes and atrocities of that conflict—events which seemed inconceivable and which my generation believed could never happen in Europe at the end of the 20th century.
The international tribunal was established to bring certain individuals to justice, but to date—this is a matter raised by a number of hon. Members—most of those indicted by the tribunal remain at large in Bosnia and in neighbouring countries, some of them in positions of considerable influence if not of formal, technical power. It is nowhere more true than in Bosnia that without justice there can be no lasting peace. While I understand the juxtaposition of peace and justice mentioned by the hon. Member for Tatton, we must insist that both be pressed for as rapidly as possible.
There can be no lasting peace without justice—an issue to which the British Government must attach the highest priority and one which I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss last week when I met Judge Antonio Cassese. We are, I believe, in the first rank of those helping the tribunal. We have given personnel, resources and evidence, including eye witness reports from British soldiers who served in Bosnia. A British judge, Judge May, has recently been elected to the panel of tribunal judges.
I must emphasise, however, that responsibility for capturing indictees and handing them over to the tribunal must rest with the Governments of the region. There can be no ambiguity or doubt about that, and their failure so far to do so is deplorable. We have increased the pressure on those Governments. As a result of decisions taken at Sintra, the international community will blacklist any municipality in which war crimes indictees hold public office and we shall work with our EU partners to implement a comprehensive travel ban on anyone having dealings with such persons. We shall also look for other ways of pressing those Governments to live up to their international obligations—for example, none will achieve their ambitions for closer relations with NATO or the European Union until they have done so.
Hon. Friends have mentioned the role of SFOR. While I repeat for the third time that it must be the responsibility of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their neighbours to deliver indictees to the tribunal, SFOR troops will detain and transfer to the tribunal any indicted person with whom they come into contact in the course of their duties—provided, of course, that the tactical situation permits.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue as I may be about to answer his question.
The London conference in December last year asked the steering board to consider what more could be done to bring indictees to justice. We are following up that remit vigorously, in consultation with our allies. For obvious reasons, it would not be acceptable for me to comment further and no one here would expect me to do so. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that any action to get war criminals to The Hague must, of course, ensure the safety of SFOR troops and other members of the international community.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not expect my hon. Friend to reply off the top of his head as this is basically a defence matter, but on the subject of SFOR troops and their safety some of us feel very strongly that the heavy armour must be retained in Bosnia. We must remember the experience of the Sappers, some of whom were taken hostage. To make the point, especially to the Serbs, the heavy tanks—the Challengers—have to be there.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will forgive me as I am simply not qualified to give him a direct response, but I can say that the security of our own troops is very high on any list of priorities that we would draw up. All hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to the role of the British troops serving in Bosnia, and I agree with that sentiment. As part of our recognition of that, we have an obligation to ensure that the safety of the troops figures highly on our list of priorities.
On the question of human rights more generally, a decision was taken at last December's London conference to make a sizeable increase in the number of the international police task force expressly so as to allow that force a greater role in investigating human rights abuses. That was a welcome step and has now been confirmed by a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Several hon. Members raised the subject of a possible successor to the stabilisation force currently deployed on the ground in Bosnia. It is too early to say what requirement there will be for a follow-on military presence after SFOR withdraws in June 1998—the key priority now is to focus on achieving as much as we can in the next 12 months—but we have made it clear that we believe that any follow-on force should be NATO led and should involve a sizeable US presence on the ground.
Lastly, we must not lose sight of the regional dimension. The problems of Bosnia are not the only ones in the region: difficulties remain, for example, over the reintegration of eastern Slavonia, the need for progress in Kosovo and the regional refugee crisis. By their very nature, the problems of the region are interrelated and we need a comprehensive regional strategy to address them.
I should like to make a topical point. A particular matter of concern throughout the region is the question of free media. The elections in Croatia have highlighted continuing problems with state domination of the media there. Last week in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia we welcomed the launch, with UK and international support, of an independent radio network covering much of the country. Attempts by the FRY authorities to suppress independent political reporting must cease. For all the countries in the region, progress in that respect will be a key factor in deciding how their relations with the European Union develop.

Mr. Hill: The media will obviously play a part in the municipal elections in September, which my hon. Friend the Minister has not yet mentioned. Is he satisfied that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has the resources and experience and is the appropriate body properly to oversee those elections? Will he give an assurance that the British Government and the other Governments involved will apply the closest possible scrutiny to the activities of the OSCE in the period leading up to the municipal elections?

Mr. Lloyd: I apologise to my hon. Friend: he raised that matter earlier and although I intended to reply directly, I have not done so.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's critique of last September's elections. We accept that there were shortcomings, but it was inevitable that there would be difficulties in holding elections less than a year after a ceasefire in a country with relatively limited democratic traditions. The outcome was far from perfect and we have to ensure that the lessons learnt then are put into practice so that future elections in Bosnia conform far more closely to acceptable international standards.
We believe that the OSCE is indeed the proper body to monitor the forthcoming municipal elections, which are scheduled to take place on 13 and 14 September this year. Voter registration is under way and it is important to note that refugees—including those in the United Kingdom—can register to vote, either where they were registered in 1991 or in the municipality in which they intend to live in the future. The UK has so far provided 48 core supervisors, trainers and registration supervisors, two long-term observers and 14 secondees to the OSCE mission in Bosnia. We have also contributed £2 million to the OSCE's budget and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is currently considering what further support we can give.
Those who are monitoring events on the ground in Bosnia are confident that the lessons of the previous elections have been learnt by the OSCE mission and that the forthcoming municipal elections will be more free and fair as a result. However, it is right to say that all of us owe an obligation to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure that the OSCE is charged with the importance of monitoring the elections in an acceptable manner and we will play our role in that. The municipal elections must be carried off in an acceptable way as part of the process of civilianisation. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the electoral process and of ensuring that the elections pass without difficulty and are deemed to be as free and fair as possible.
The problems of Bosnia have to be set in the regional context. The European Union has made a good start with the elaboration of a regional approach to the development


of relations with the countries of the region, making progress for the individual countries dependent on both their support for peace implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their own internal policies. We must insist on that and build on it.
In the longer term, regional stability will be best served by drawing the countries of former Yugoslavia into Europe's political, economic and security architecture, rather than by keeping them outside it and trying to distance ourselves from the vagaries of that volatile region. The Balkans are European and we must ensure that they are integrated into the processes of Europe. Only through integration, both within the region and between the region and the rest of Europe, can the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the surrounding countries put the past behind them and begin to plan for a peaceful and prosperous future. If we want to build a just and lasting peace in the Balkans—as we do—that regional process is the only way to achieve it.

Sitting suspended.

European Union Enlargement

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: My purpose in calling this debate was simple. Having been unable to speak in the European debate last Monday week, I decided to try to hold one of my own. I was lucky in the ballot; and as it turns out, this is a particularly pertinent day for the debate. Yet again, this time in Amsterdam, the leaders of the EU have dragged their feet on enlargement, on which I shall say more in a moment.
This is my maiden speech and I should like to say something about my predecessor. Tony Nelson made an enormous contribution to this House. Talking to hon. Members, I have come to realise how popular he was with his colleagues. He also made notable contributions as a Treasury and then as a trade Minister. But it was while campaigning that I realised the full extent of his contribution to politics, because I met so many people on their doorsteps whom, in his quiet but effective way, Tony had helped over the years. I am fortunate to be taking over from him.
I am fortunate, too, to be able to represent Chichester. The city itself has enormous charm, not least because the restrictions on the height of new constructions have preserved the mediaeval views of the cathedral from most directions. The destructive planning zeal of the 1960s was kept at bay in Chichester.
In terms of population, the city is only a little over a quarter of the constituency, which is primarily a rural seat stretching more than 30 miles, all the way from Linchmere and North Chapel on the Surrey border to Selsey and the Witterings on the south coast. The constituency contains elegant country towns such as Petworth and Midhurst, and incorporates a great swathe of the south downs, sprinkled with some of the most delightful villages in the whole of England.
Certainly, Chichester could scarcely have been more beautiful than it was as the first pink fingers of dawn came up behind the cathedral on 2 May, soon after the declaration. I was also reminded that one is never far from the countryside when, driving the three miles home to Bosham from the count, I disturbed deer on the road.
The need intelligently to restrain the pressure for development and more housing, and the need to conserve the beauty of the area, will no doubt be high on my agenda in the years ahead—as will the concerns of the horticultural and farming communities.
I am also fortunate to have contested Chichester, in the obvious sense that I was standing on a piece of blue ground high enough to avoid the red tide of 1 May—high enough, indeed, to send me here with a majority of nearly 10,000. But I would rather have half the majority and twice the number of colleagues.
The Conservatives were defeated not because they espoused the wrong policies. On the contrary, it was only when Labour adopted both Conservative rhetoric and Conservative policies, lock, stock and barrel—even going as far as to accept the ceilings on public expenditure, programme by programme—that it became electable. The Conservatives were defeated because they appeared divided, above all on Europe.
It is a curious fact, and a tragedy for the Conservative party, that so many of the points made on both sides of the so-called Europe divide are right. I believe that there


is much to commend the commonsense approach to many of these issues of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). But there is also no doubt that a huge number of the criticisms of the EU voiced by so-called Euro-sceptics are also correct. The EU's budget is often wastefully, sometimes corruptly, spent, as successive Court of Auditors reports have revealed. Absurd and ill-thought-out regulations pour out of Brussels. EU Commissioners would do well to heed the strictures of that great free trader, Richard Cobden—incidentally, he went to Midhurst grammar school in my constituency—who said:
With how little knowledge we enter upon the task of regulating the concerns of other people.
As for economic and monetary union, whatever its economic merits—and there are some—the challenge of preparing for it is now bringing about a dangerous competitive deflation between France and Germany.
In the months ahead, the Government may seek to create the impression of a new and more positive policy towards Europe, but I believe that the policy, whatever the tone, will remain much the same. At Amsterdam another opt-out has been negotiated, this time on immigration and asylum—although it is dressed up differently.
There has of course been one change—signing the social chapter. I believe that that is a profound mistake, but I shall develop my reasons for thinking so on another occasion.
The social chapter excepted, I believe that the Government will be forced back to broadly the same policies as the former Government pursued on Europe. That is simply because all the logic points to them. And, despite a good deal of watering down by the Foreign Office, those policies amount to a demand for fundamental reform of the European Union. Above all, the British agenda has been, and should continue to be, to abandon the drive for federalism and replace it with a framework of close co-operation between independent states: a framework loose enough to accommodate the needs of the newly liberated states of eastern Europe.
The European Union desperately needs fundamental reform. It was created to do one job in the post-war period, and it should now be doing another for the 21st century. There were three original tasks: to create an institutional framework for Franco-German reconciliation after the horrors of the last war; to provide an economic framework of co-operation that could prevent a repetition of the economic crises of the 1930s—crises which did so much to bring about the rise of Hitler and Nazism; and thirdly, the European Economic Community, as it then was, was created to act as a bulwark against the spread of communism. It was an economic counterpart to NATO. It is worth recalling that until the withdrawal of Soviet troops from east Germany in the early 1990s, they were as close to my constituency as Aberdeen.
Today, none of these objectives is relevant to Europe's peace and prosperity. Few people believe that the French and Germans are going to start another war, or that we will be plunged into another bout of 1930s-style protection. As for the communist threat, the Soviet Union has collapsed into 16 more or less independent countries.
In my view, the great issues facing the continent of Europe in the 21st century will have little to do with those that led to the creation of the European Community. In a nutshell, there are two of them. First, there is

the imperative need to restore Europe's global competitiveness. Britain may be doing better than most, but the whole continent is slipping behind the far east, in particular.
Secondly, the countries of the EU should be finding a way quickly to re-integrate central and eastern Europe in the family of western democracies. That can be achieved only by building institutions that fall short of the federal goal. Only the most lunatic Euro-federalists believe that there could be a federation from Britain to Belarus.
There is plainly an unsustainable tension between widening and deepening. The countries of central and eastern Europe have an understandable desire, for the first time in over half a century, to express their national identity, and the German objective of subsuming Germany's national identity in a wider European framework holds no appeal for them. Their applications for membership are motivated by something quite different: by the need to bolster their new-found independence, by the need for recognition as part of the family of western nations which membership of western institutions brings, and by the fear of exclusion from a zone of economic prosperity.
I believe that it is in both Britain's and western Europe's interests that wider should come before deeper. We all have a huge geopolitical stake in consolidating the stability of eastern Europe.
I speak as a convinced European but one who believes that, of all the post-war institutions, the EU is the one which has shown the least imagination in adapting to the revolutions that have swept across our continent in the past eight years. One of the saddest spectacles of all was the sight of leaders of the EU carrying on with exactly the same agenda for reform of the EC after the Berlin wall came down as the one they had been pursuing before. That is rigidity and myopia on a grand scale. How can it be that at Maastricht and still at Amsterdam the leaders of western Europe are ignoring the dramatic events taking place around them, and instead are carrying on with further bids to complete the outworn agenda drawn up in the 1950s?
The plain fact is that the challenge of completing the 1950s agenda is an act of faith for several of western Europe's leaders, particularly those whose views were moulded by the searing experiences of the last war.
Of course, there are also many practical reasons why the countries of the European Union find enlargement indigestible, among them the fear of increased competition, worries about labour mobility and concern about the cost of enlargement. It is not lost on some countries that they would be turned from net recipients into net contributors.
Real though those concerns are, none of them should be insuperable. Most of the countries of central and eastern Europe have a strong commitment to free markets and a capacity to implement internal market laws at least equal to those of the newer entrants from the southern tier.
As for the budgetary costs, those worries are also an opportunity; many of them are generated by the common agricultural policy and regional policy, both of which desperately need root and branch reform. The European budget is one of the scandals of our time.
The old agenda is also sustained by the varied but very practical objectives of some of the key players in the EC. I saw that at first hand, in my own small way.


In 1990 and 1991, shortly after I left my job as adviser in the Treasury, I was sent out to try to sell the so-called "hard ECU proposal".
I well remember a lunch—a very good lunch—in the guest restaurant in the top of the Tresor. When the wine was flowing, the French official said to me, "Look, Andrew, we need EMU because that is the only way we can control the Germans. We must get our hands on the Bundesbank, and Britain must help us." French policy, moulded by three invasions in the past 120 years, is dedicated above all to the need to control Germany.
A few weeks later, I was in Rome, having another excellent lunch—there are some compensations for being a salesman for the hard ECU proposal—and I asked my host, a former senior adviser to the Italian Government, why Italy was pursuing EMU so vigorously, when it would obviously be so difficult for the Italian economy to adjust. He replied to the following effect: "You must understand, Andrew, that government in Rome is little short of a disaster. Even government from Brussels is better than this."
And the small countries have their own motives. How else could Luxembourg, with a population about the same size as that of my birthplace, Southend on Sea, obtain a vote in the Council of Ministers and even a veto on many issues?
In contrast, for most British people there never has been a big political subtext for membership; nor, like Germany, have we needed it as a badge of international respectability. It has always been seen by most in Britain simply as a vehicle for greater economic prosperity.
I began by saying that the Europe issue had a lot to do with my party's defeat at the last election. The future of the European Union, however, is not just a problem for my party or even for Britain; it is Europe's problem. I believe that the countries of Europe should discard the outworn agenda drawn up in the 1950s with an eye on the last war, which is still directing policy.
The EU should start to address the new agenda that I have outlined briefly, and it should do so quickly, instead of offering subtle protection as a reaction to the loss of competitiveness and stalling measures to delay membership to the central European countries. I saw both of those first hand when I was working for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I fear that more stalling tactics on enlargement were in evidence at Amsterdam.
If the EU does not reform itself, it will at best make itself less and less relevant to the problems of its citizens, and at worst, the pursuit of federal conformity will threaten the social stability which the founding fathers of the EU hoped that it would underpin
.
I fervently hope that this Government, like the previous one, will not shirk the task of pressing the EU to change direction and accelerate enlargement; nor should they allow official advice to conjure evil spirits from the notion of a multidimensional Europe.
It is time to discard the idea that members of the EU should move forward together on everything, or not at all. That has long been a myth, anyway. Britain's interests lie simply in being in that ring, tier or dimension—call it what one wants—which is consonant with the greatest degree of market freedom and economic prosperity.
I have given some of the reasons why the Government may face an uphill struggle in putting the case for swifter enlargement. Even if the leaders of some other countries are not prepared to address that agenda, I hope that the Government will not be afraid to use all the tools at their disposal to press their case.
Britain's huge financial contributions to the EU are a powerful lever in negotiations. Withholding those contributions may eventually have to be considered. If such a policy were to succeed in triggering reform of the EU and swifter enlargement, then 20 years of large net contributions to the Community would at last be seen to pay a dividend.

Mr. David Davis: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his speech—an excellent speech, from its remarkably honest opening to its perceptive conclusions, as we might expect from an adviser to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and from a graduate of the College of Europe which, I remind the House, is of course based in Bruges.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Where is that?

Mr. Davis: The Minister for Europe asks an appropriate question.
My hon. Friend's warnings on Europe were well informed, and eloquently and clearly expressed. They are particularly timely today, in the aftermath of Amsterdam. I commend my hon. Friend for a brilliant speech at the start, I think, of an outstanding career.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I have not yet had the opportunity to do so from the Dispatch Box. I have always known that you were a measured man in your previous roles in Parliament, and I am sure that you will continue to be a measured man in your current role, and that we will all be the better for that.
I join the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in congratulating the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his first contribution to the House. He said that he had hoped to speak in the Europe debate. If some of us were disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to hear him then, we were compensated today. His speech was generous to his predecessor and a thoughtful contribution on Europe. It was interesting and its content was excellent, although it contained some mild ambiguity. I may return to that, if the clock permits.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased to represent a rural constituency. I am sure that he is particularly pleased that three quarters of his constituency is rural. I know how beautiful the constituency is.
I had the pleasure of responding to a maiden contribution from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I recalled that I had spent a little time in my late teens working in that area. I worked for British Rail for a while, and one of my jobs, to earn a little


overtime, was as a train announcer at Redhill station. On occasions, I had the good fortune to read out the stations between Redhill and Bognor Regis and, if my memory serves me correctly, the train stopped at Petworth, Midhurst and other stations.
I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency a little, and of course it is famous also for its cricket ground, a fact that will be appreciated by Mr. Deputy Speaker, who takes a keen interest in such matters.
The hon. Gentleman accused our European colleagues of myopia. He is well placed to understand the way in which Europe works. The hon. Gentleman is also well placed to understand the workings of the Conservative party. I understand why he made certain comments on the day between votes on the Conservative party leadership.
I am bound to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. If he is present in the Chamber later today, he will hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend will confirm that there is no border controls opt-out by Britain in the agreement reached at Amsterdam. The treaty asserts Britain's right to control its borders—an outcome which the Conservatives failed to achieve during 18 years in government.
The hon. Member for Chichester described himself as a European. We are all Europeans because we live in Europe. The hon. Gentleman pointed to some compensation for the European way of life that had more to do with the stomach than anything else—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden agrees with him. During my six weeks in Europe, I found it a bit of a bind at lunchtime—although I did not complain in the evenings. I have much in common with my European colleagues, but I do not like long lunches and I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman showed considerable wisdom in raising several general points—I hope that time will allow me to respond specifically to the enlargement question. He will learn from my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon that negotiations in Amsterdam identified the same crucial priorities. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the need to combat fraud. It is no longer acceptable for public organisations anywhere in Europe to permit incidents of fraud or alleged fraud and to accept them as a way of life. It is incumbent on organisations to take every step necessary to combat fraud. My right hon. Friend's statement will refer to that issue and to how Britain has taken a lead in negotiations in the past six weeks by insisting on the inclusion of a clause about combating fraud. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on that important issue.
The hon. Gentleman was correct to state that Europe's future relies on the close co-operation of nations and that federalism is not on the major players' European agenda at present. My right hon. Friend will also identify that priority in his statement. We agree about the nature of the global environment: global competitiveness is vital to the British economy and to other economies throughout Europe.
The European Union must also address the important question of employability. Any organisation may draw up regulations to deal with individual matters—and some regulations are necessary in order to underpin basic rights—but the key issue in economic and employment terms, on which my right hon. Friend will reflect this

afternoon, is making British people more employable. Politicians are not alone in recognising that fact. People employed in factories up and down the country know that their futures depend on their gaining new skills and on their companies' having good products, being competitive, adapting to new technology and breaking into new markets.
Those factors must form the core of the European Union's employment strategy. The EU must not meddle in every employment issue affecting member states, but must set out a framework in areas where it is wise to co-operate and to exchange best practice. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman identified that vital part of the EU' s employment strategy. I hope that later today his colleagues will show their understanding of the nation's needs—which I hope that the Government have recognised.
We believe that enlargement is crucial to the European Community's future. The countries of western, central and eastern Europe have witnessed many changes in recent years. The European Union has also seen many changes in the 30 years since its inception. Europe must combine its existing challenges with those that it will face in the longer term, particularly in view of the changing position in a wider Europe. Stability, security and substantial trading opportunities are crucial to Europe as a whole.
We must stage a concerted attack against crime, illegal drugs and global pollution. One country cannot solve those problems alone, and neither can the present European Union. It is in member states' interests to extend the European Union's sphere of influence to include other countries that may wish to join the Union in the near future. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the timetable in that regard: the Commission will consider the applications of 10 would-be member countries by mid-July and express its view regarding their suitability.
As the hon. Gentleman said, countries have different priorities and motivations for joining the EU. However, they will be assessed using common criteria. Parliamentary democracy must be established in any nation that wishes to join the European Union. Human rights and the protection of minorities—a hallmark of any democracy—must be guaranteed before a nation will be permitted to join the European Union. Countries aspiring to EU membership must have established market economies that are sufficiently robust to allow them a good chance of withstanding the pressures that they will inevitably face as they come into line with existing EU member economies.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Amsterdam summit's failure to make any progress on institutional reform as a preparation for enlargement mean that those who wish to put roadblocks in the way of enlargement have won the day?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House this afternoon. While we would have liked to see more progress in establishing the European Union's new institutional framework, some progress has been made. My right hon. Friend will refer to changes that will be made before enlargement occurs. Unfortunately, we could not secure detailed agreement among the nations of


the European Union about alterations to the voting system and the Commission's structure. However, a large measure of understanding was reached. I have had extensive talks with European colleagues in the past three days, and I assure my hon. Friend that they agree that the enlargement issue must be addressed. It is a case of making as many changes as we can now in order to establish a structure that will enable further changes in the future.

Mr. David Heath: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, I cannot give way as I must complete my response to the hon. Member for Chichester. However, I shall remember the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and give way to him generously on another occasion.
All applications for EU membership will be considered, and detailed negotiations will take place with those countries that the Commission believes are ready to enter into them. We must also keep in close touch with other nations that hope to meet the membership criteria at a later stage. EU members should assist them in preparing to make the changes necessary in order to meet those criteria.
There are many implications for the future of the existing nations of the European Union and those who wish to join it. In the time ahead, I hope that those who are truly committed to the future of democracy and to a successful, prosperous Europe of political understanding will work together to meet the challenges. I hope that they will do so regardless of the minor differences that may exist among people about local party political issues. I hope that those people will use their endeavours to meet the challenges to ensure that the enlargement of the European Union takes place. We will then achieve the success and stability that is crucial to our future.

Asbestos Imports

1 pm

Mr. Michael Clapham: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). I know that it is a little belated, but this is the first time I have been able to address her in the Chamber. I know that she has a good understanding of environmental issues, good sense and tenacity. I know that she will do a first-class job.
I intend to make the case for banning asbestos. I will put the evidence on behalf of that and then suggest to my hon. Friend a course of action. I believe that the case for banning white asbestos is irresistible. Today, 11 people will die either because they worked with asbestos or because they had contact with it unwittingly. Of those 11, four will die of mesothelioma, four from cancer of the lung and the others from asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases.
I have not just plucked those figures from the air—they are based on research that was supported by the Health and Safety Executive and published in 1985. It showed that in the next 25 years the number of deaths would increase to reach a predicted death rate of between 5,000 and 10,000. That is a matter of great concern, and when the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission commented on his advice to the previous Government in January, he said:
Asbestos is one of the biggest occupational health challenges facing us today.
I should like to mention some cases with which I am familiar in which white asbestos has been a factor. In my former job I represented miners who had been injured at work and I still do some medical appeal tribunal work.
In 1980, I dealt with the case of a man who developed asbestosis, having spent all his life working in a colliery as a lamp room attendant. The only link that we could find to relate the disease to his occupation was the fact that as he dismantled and reassembled the oil lamps, he had fitted a small white ring of asbestos above and below the glass in those lamps. Until recently, those lamps were used to detect methane gas. It was that contact with asbestos which caused the man to develop asbestosis in later life.
I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent, Mr. Ted Dudley, who is an elderly miner. In the 1950s, he worked with machines that had asbestos linings. Two years ago, his lungs were found to be full of asbestos material and part of his lung was removed. I emphasise to the Minister that that condition became apparent 40 years after the man's contact with asbestos.
In answer to a written question that appears in the Hansard of yesterday's date, at column 39, I was informed that in 1995–96 there was one award in each year to teaching professionals who contacted an asbestos-related disease. That does not include figures for posthumous claims. I should point out to my hon. Friend that those who have been in contact with asbestos unwittingly are often unaware of their condition and that the disease is generally discovered on death. The same answer reveals that the total number of awards for asbestosis in those two years came to 2,644.
Asbestos is one of the most dangerous substances in widespread use. It is, therefore, of great concern that it is still used despite the availability of effective substitutes. It is true that, in general, those substitutes tend to be a little more pricey, but that is because of the market. I suggest to my hon. Friend that if white asbestos were to be banned, the market for substitutes would expand and their price would fall. If there were such a ban, I am sure that the 1,000 people who are currently employed in the manufacture of materials that include asbestos would be absorbed by the expansion of the industry producing non-asbestos alternatives. If we consider the socio-economic costs of asbestosis to society—the cost of compensation, medical treatment and care—those substitutes become considerably cheaper than asbestos.
In September 1996, the World Health Organisation expressed concern about white asbestos and recommended that
when available, substitute materials should be used.
I am informed by the Association for Manufacturers Against Asbestos that there are alternatives that could be used for the manufacture of most materials that currently rely on asbestos.
Huge amounts of asbestos are imported by Britain from Ireland and Belgium, and an increasing amount is also imported from Poland. In 1995, the value of imported white asbestos materials was £45 million. The major exporter and the largest manufacturer of asbestos materials is ETEX of Belgium, which owns Eternit Belgium, Eternit United Kingdom, Eternit France and Tegral of Ireland. My hon. Friend may find it interesting to know that Mr. Liam Hughes, the chair of the Asbestos Information Centre, is also chief executive of Eternit United Kingdom. That is hardly a recommendation for impartiality, but his evidence is drawn on by the Health and Safety Commission.
Increasing amounts of asbestos sheet is being imported from Poland. The raw material is taken there from Russia to complete its manufacturing process. The increase in those imports is quite alarming. According to Extrastat, which provides the relevant statistics on the industry, between April 1996 and April 1997 imports from Poland increased alarmingly. My hon. Friend should note that those statistics are somewhat bizarre for 1997. Those for 1996 record that in April, 38,180 kg of asbestos were imported by Britain at a value of £9,366. In the year-to-date column of the 1996 statistics we see the same figures. That shows that April is the beginning of the financial year. When a comparison is made with the 1997 statistics, we see that the value of asbestos imported in April 1997 is recorded as being £121,990. The value shown for the year to date-as I have said, the financial year begins in April—is £304,146. It is clear that there is an enormous difference between the two figures. Indeed, a reference states, "Suppressed commodity code."
The figures relate to money value, but weights are not mentioned. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that, because of the value of the pound, the amount of asbestos material that will be imported for the value that I have described will be considerable.

Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend is aware that I am at present the Rapporteur at the Council of Europe for a report on asbestos. My colleagues and I will follow with great interest the points that he is making. We have

found that there is an enormous movement of asbestos within the 40 member states of the Council. We are deeply concerned about the inadequate labelling of the materials that are being moved. That is causing enormous problems. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will take that on board.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The materials coming in from Poland are poorly labelled. Many construction companies are using roofing slates and other materials imported from Poland, unaware that they contain asbestos. It is alarming that many of those slates will be used in repairing public buildings such as schools.
I am aware, of course, that asbestos materials are already in public buildings and I acknowledge that it is not always appropriate to remove them. It is necessary, however, wherever there are asbestos materials, to ensure that those materials are contained and that work is maintained at the highest possible standard in containing it. Where asbestos material is removed, the work must be done safely in accordance with the HSE guidelines. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that we must regulate some of the cowboy demolition companies.
What should be done in the light of the evidence that I have put before my hon. Friend? Given the overwhelming evidence that white asbestos is dangerous, we must act now. I ask her to consider a complete and immediate ban in the United Kingdom on all white asbestos materials. She will know that France has already imposed such a ban, along with six other European countries. The French ban came into being on 1 January 1997.
Eternit France, to which I have already referred, argued that it would be put out of business. It said that the French ban would be catastrophic for the industry. I note from its January newsletter, however, that it was able to announce the conversion to new technology of its entire production base. It has not taken that company long to adjust to the ban in France. That company, which argues the merits of asbestos through the Asbestos Information Centre, knows full well that its production base is being changed to meet the ban. That says much for the Asbestos Information Centre.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the possibility of moving on from a United Kingdom to a European-wide ban. I ask her also to consider a thorough review of asbestos licensing operations. That is important, because we find that many companies that work in the demolition sector tend to be those which do not care a great deal for their employees. Finally, I ask my hon. Friend whether she would be prepared to consider what might be done to require building owners to survey their buildings to locate asbestos.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate on such an extremely important subject.
I assure the House at the outset that, unlike our predecessors, this Labour Government are determined to deal effectively with the new uses of asbestos once and for all. We have already initiated action. There will be no


empty promises from the Government and no palliatives such as those that came from the previous Administration. We value human life and we know that asbestos represents a serious threat to it. We shall take the necessary steps to protect human health.
I hope that my hon. Friend will indulge me a little: this is the first debate that enables me to confirm the Government's strong commitment to health and safety. I shall say a few words about that before coming to his justifiable worries.
We intend to put an end to what we believe has been a progressive erosion of governmental commitment to protecting people's health and safety over the past 18 years. The previous Administration did not, in our opinion, give health and safety the attention that it deserves. Main responsibility was concentrated exclusively at Under-Secretary of State level. We, however, have allocated two Ministers to this important area, the Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), and myself.
We are unequivocal in our support for the important work that is done by the Health and Safety Executive and the commission. We have met their representatives and we have been impressed by their professionalism, expertise and commitment, and especially by the consensual, tripartite way in which they work. I wish to commend also the work of the Trades Union Congress and many individual trades unions in this extremely important area. They have great expertise and provide a mechanism with which to try to educate workers about the dangers of asbestos. That work is priceless.
We intend to be positive and proactive when it comes to health and safety.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the death toll from asbestos-related diseases is horrendous. About 1,200 people were killed by mesothelioma last year and about twice that number died from lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Even worse, as my hon. Friend said, the death toll is predicted to continue to rise over the next two to three decades.
We know that most of those now suffering from asbestos-related disease are suffering as a result of exposure that occurred many years ago. I am determined that strong and effective measures are taken to minimise the risks posed by this killer substance. I am determined also that the death toll from asbestos in the long term should be reduced. Failure to recognise and accept the dangers from asbestos over previous decades, and failure to take all possible action when necessary, leaves us with a legacy of exposure to asbestos that will continue to claim lives for decades to come. We must safeguard the health of current and future generations by taking firm action now.
Large quantities of asbestos have been used in the construction of thousands of buildings—for example, schools, hospitals and office blocks—and work involving asbestos still represents an enormous health risk. That is one problem. Another is the justified concern about the continuing import of asbestos.
I was alarmed by some of the information that my hon. Friend gave the House, both about the bad labelling and about a seeming increase in imports, as well as about

some of the rather dubious connections between the organisations that purport to give information and the industry itself. I shall draw those to the attention of the Health and Safety Commission.
The commission has given priority to the asbestos problem in recent years and we all know that the import and supply of blue and brown asbestos—the most hazardous types—have been banned for several years. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, large quantities of both those types of asbestos remain in buildings, forming a potentially lethal legacy.
I am especially worried about the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, two teachers have now been discovered to be suffering from asbestosis. That demonstrates the danger that lurks in public buildings, and the legacy of the use of such substances. We must do what we can to minimise that danger.
Obviously, there is a considerable risk to those whose work disturbs asbestos during maintenance or other building work, or when the asbestos is removed. Those are the danger times. The commission has run an extensive publicity campaign to raise awareness among building workers, who are the people most at risk—although I recognise the extension of the risk that my hon. Friend described.
The casual nature of the building trade and the culture of sub-subcontracting undoubtedly puts building workers at risk. My hon. Friend talked about "cowboy" employers, and I do not dissent from that opinion. We must consider stronger action than mere publicity.
The Health and Safety Executive will take enforcement action, where that is merited, for breaches of asbestos regulations. Last year, the courts imposed a landmark custodial sentence for breaches of health and safety legislation. I welcome that—but there is bad news, too.
Only recently, fines totalling £3,800 plus costs were imposed by north Surrey magistrates for asbestos-related offences committed by Surrey county council and W. S. Atkins Ltd. on council premises. The Surrey case is worrying because it involved what was thought to be a blue chip company, from which one might have expected higher standards. If blue chip companies are being hauled before the courts for failing to observe existing statutory requirements, I dread to think what the cowboy companies are doing.
We should not be tempted to think that those involved in the Surrey case received a bloody nose. I do not regard £3,800 as much of a bloody nose. Even worse is the fact that the average fine secured by the HSE over the past five years for breaches of the law controlling asbestos at work was a mere £1,120. That is a pretty feeble sum by anyone's standards, given the fact that exposure to asbestos can cause appalling suffering, and even death.
I am determined that breaches of legislation designed to safeguard people's health against the effects of exposure to asbestos should be treated more seriously. Indeed, that should apply to all health and safety offences, to provide an effective deterrent for those who might otherwise contemplate flouting the law. In short, if the penalties are worse, companies will realise that they simply cannot get away with being lax and treating people's health and safety as some kind of afterthought.
In most cases, the fines currently handed down by the courts are pitifully low, which prevents the operation of an effective system of deterrence. We are considering


what can be done about that. I welcome the fact that the Health and Safety Commission is already considering a variety of other actions connected with tightening our legislation to protect workers from the effects of working with existing asbestos.
The commission is considering extending the scope of the current statutory licensing scheme covering asbestos stripping to include work with asbestos insulation board, and placing a new duty on owners or occupiers to survey buildings for the presence of asbestos. It is also considering extending the circumstances in which a licence to remove asbestos can be revoked, and how to exert stronger pressure in Europe to extend the existing prohibitions.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who brought to my attention the worrying level of imports and the movement of badly labelled hazardous materials throughout Europe.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the effective way in which she is putting the case and telling us that the Government will take more action on this important subject. She mentioned Europe, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, in his excellent introduction, pointed out that France has an import ban. Many other countries also have tighter restrictions on the import of that deadly material.
Surely a Labour Government, keen on the health and safety of workers—my hon. Friend is certainly showing that she shares that attitude—would not want to do less than a country such as France. While we are talking about tightening the rules in Europe, will my hon. Friend ensure that if we achieve tighter restrictions on asbestos here, the banned substances will not be dumped in the third world?

Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for his sage intervention. He should have a little faith; I hope that he will like what he hears when I reach the end of my speech. However, I have only five minutes left and a lot more to say.
My Department has commissioned an independent assessment of the risks to health from environmental exposure to asbestos, including exposure in homes, schools and public places. I hope that the House will recognise that we are beginning to consider what we can do to give help, advice and some duties to local authorities and to the owners or managers of buildings in which asbestos is present.
Much of what the Health and Safety Commission is doing is good, but I believe that it can do more. I have, therefore, asked it for advice on how more urgent action can be taken, and for that advice to reach me quickly. For example, I believe that a duty to survey buildings for the presence of asbestos is vital, as it addresses an area of high risk and will enable priority to be given to identifying and properly treating the asbestos that remains. It is also important that such a duty will allow the presence of asbestos to be labelled, so that people know where the hazard lurks.
The quantities are being reduced, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, we cannot ignore the fact that chrysotiile, or "white",

asbestos is still being imported into this country. I am interested in my hon. Friend's information about increases in imports, and I should like to talk to him about it.
Most such asbestos is used in asbestos-cement products, and both of the main uses can be replaced relatively easily with non-asbestos alternatives. Although there are some temporary shortages of alternative fibres, I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem can be overcome.
The Government consider that continued use of products containing asbestos should be forcefully challenged. A prohibition on supply or use will lead to significant reductions in the overall risk to human health, by protecting current generations from exposure, so we want to move to that position with all speed.
The Government recognise, of course, that there are still some very specialised uses for which alternative fibres or processes cannot be used. However, such uses must be strictly limited in number, and allowed only where no viable alternative can be found.
Supply of the most hazardous forms of asbestos has already been banned, and we believe that the time has come to phase out remaining uses of the material altogether. There is a European Union proposal, which has been on the table for some years, for a complete ban on the supply of asbestos, with only limited derogations for genuinely essential uses. We must watch the derogations loophole carefully.
No agreement has yet been reached. It is interesting that, originally, the failure to reach agreement arose because France blocked support. Now, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the French have taken action and we believe that there is now greater urgency and a real chance to achieve an agreement that will ban white asbestos within Europe. Such a move will have our full and active support.
Naturally, we are concerned to ensure that tangible and beneficial action emerges from all that work and we are seconding to the European Commission a senior specialist on asbestos from the HSE, to lead that work and bring the prohibition into Community legislation as quickly as possible.
Irrespective of the work in Europe, we have concluded that the best course now is for us to consider what action is necessary in this country.
The Minister for the Environment and I have discussed with the Health and Safety Commission our wish for a mechanism to be put in place, as a matter of urgency, for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of all asbestos. We have asked the commission to advise us on how that could be achieved and to what timetable.
We are anxious to see urgent action, but people should understand that the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission have a duty to consult. We shall take speedy action that is consistent with the duty of the HSE and HSC to consult.
The risks posed by exposure to asbestos are serious and require urgent action. We shall take that urgent action and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Oxfordshire Health Authority

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the funding of Oxfordshire health authority. I am grateful to the Minister for being present to respond, given his particularly heavy work load. It may be some consolation to him to know that, when I was a junior Minister, I responded to no fewer than 65 Adjournment debates in one year, so he has some way to go yet.
The national health service budget is huge. Spending on the NHS this year will be about £725 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. This year, spending on health will rise by about £1.6 billion, and spending on hospital and community health services will increase by 3 per cent. over and above inflation. I appreciate that we are dealing with substantial sums of money, which for many years have increased in real terms.
In Oxfordshire, total NHS spending this year will be about £325 million. That works out at about £540 for each man, woman and child in the county. Therein lies the problem. The national average is £725 for each person, as opposed to £540 in Oxfordshire—a difference of £185 for every man, woman and child in the county.
There is an agreed national capitation funding formula: everyone understands what it means and how it is worked out. There is no dispute that, according to the formula and its criteria, Oxfordshire is the third most underfunded health authority in England. Having regard to its population, size and other relevant factors, it is £9.6 million below target.
That underfunding is of considerable concern, given that health authorities understandably have limited scope for carrying forward recurring deficits or shortfalls on their budgets. That, straightforwardly, is the thrust of my request to the Government: that, as soon as possible, a way should be found to get Oxfordshire's funding nearer to the sums that it should receive under the national capitation funding formula.
I appreciate that this problem is not new, and that some funding formula or distribution mechanism is necessary to allocate NHS resources to different parts of the county. I also realise that, wherever and whenever a funding formula is used, there are bound to be variations in spend per head to reflect different needs and different demands. However, the position in Oxfordshire is slightly different.
The nationally agreed and recognised capitation funding formula is used to calculate how much each health authority should receive. Some authorities receive more than they should under the funding formula, whereas some, such as Oxfordshire, receive substantially less. Put simply, the Department of Health should ensure as speedily as possible that all health authorities are treated fairly and that, so far as is humanly possible, vhey are funded according to the national capitation funding formula.
The consequence of Oxfordshire health authority's underfunding is that, last year, it overspent by £4 million. It is required to have a sustained financial balance by March 1998. That £4 million overspend for last year must be put in the context of the £9.6 million that it is adrift from what I consider to be a fair target.
In any event, if the health authority is to have a sustained financial balance by March 1998, savings will have to be targeted on managerial and support services just to preserve existing service levels. As a consequence, significant service reductions will have to be made in Oxfordshire during the year in several trusts.
In particular, the community health trust is likely to experience emergency closures of part of one or more community hospitals. Ward closures are likely at the Oxford Radcliffe trust, and the health authority is currently discussing the implications for patient services of financial provisions within the Radcliffe infirmary trust. I am sure that the Minister will not mind if the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) briefly intervenes in the debate and takes a little of my time to explain the problems affecting hospitals in central Oxford.
Not surprisingly, Oxfordshire health authority is concerned about the relative underfunding of the NHS in Oxfordshire. It is also concerned that future formula changes could further work against Oxfordshire. To that extent, I want to put down a marker, because in my experience all Governments review the funding formula. There is a real danger that, if markers are not put down, more money will move away from shire areas, such as Oxfordshire, and into urban areas.
The impact of high wage and housing costs must be given emphasis in any new calculation, as must the impact of hosting a major teaching hospital. There is a compelling case for the NHS nationally to devote more resources to a movement towards national capitation targets; otherwise, authorities that manage their resources best will continue to be penalised.
Moreover, the financial problems experienced by Oxfordshire health authority have consequences for the whole of the country. Oxfordshire medicine is a national and international product: it attracts a high rate of national and international research income. The Oxford medical school is one of a small handful of schools that gained the highest, five-star ranking from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. If those standards are allowed to slip, the losses will not be solely Oxfordshire's, but will affect the overall advancement of medical practice and research throughout the United Kingdom.
Those worries are shared not just in the county but by the British Medical Association, which has written to me expressing concern that one of the consequences of the financial allocation for Oxfordshire will be a reduction in services provided by the Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare trust. It says that the drug and alcohol addictive behaviours unit may have to close, and argues that, given the Government's understandable commitment to addressing the wider problems of drug and alcohol addiction, it would be inappropriate to reduce such a service. All those points reflect the pressures on the health authority's budget.
I have a further specific concern. My constituency contains Horton general hospital NHS trust. Oxfordshire, with Oxford at its centre, has a huge concentration of medical expertise and experience in the John Radcliffe hospital, the Radcliffe infirmary and the teaching hospitals. For many years, there has been a general hospital in Banbury, the second largest town in the county, which is some distance from Oxford—in the north, on the Warwickshire-Northamptonshire border.


That hospital serves not just north Oxfordshire but south Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and parts of Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I feel that we share Horton general hospital, because so many of its patients come from south Northamptonshire.
I do not expect the Minister to respond in detail to the points that I am going to make—it would be unfair of me to do so—but I want to put down some markers. Compared with the huge central Oxfordshire complex, Horton general hospital has a very small budget—approximately £22 million a year—but it has a recurring overspend of between £700,000 and £800,000 a year, which, given its small budget, is fairly serious.
Concern has been expressed about the hospital's ability to deliver services and to meet the needs of some of the royal colleges. Consequently, an inquiry was set up last year, chaired by Mr. Arthur Davidson QC, a former Labour Member of Parliament. The inquiry took evidence, and made various recommendations. One of those recommendations was that, in the light of Horton's financial difficulties, consideration should be given to trust reconfiguration throughout Oxfordshire, which might reduce overhead costs and safeguard services.
The Davidson report was, however, very clear about the fact that any reconfiguration involving Oxford providers needed to focus on locally managed services to secure the continuation of an appropriate level of service in the north of the county—that is, Banbury—in the future. A general hospital was needed in Banbury, with services by and large managed in that hospital. Other services might be delivered elsewhere—for instance, by one of the Oxford trusts-but a locally managed NHS trust hospital was needed.
Horton general hospital NHS trust fears, given the way in which discussions about trust reconfiguration are going, that it will be asked to merge with the Oxfordshire community health trust, and that that trust will sub-contract the management of acute services at Horton to the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust. Alternatively, it might be merged with acute hospitals in Oxford, in which case those hospitals would delegate services more appropriately dealt with by the community health trust. That, too, would effectively mean management being sub-contracted by the community health trust. In any event, the Horton trust board—along with many people associated with the hospital—fears that the hospital will effectively disappear as an entity and that all its services will be managed elsewhere.
There is a third option, which the hospital and others have been pursuing: the "Banburyshire" solution. Horton would take under its wing some services from the community health trust and some from south Northamptonshire. Although aspects of that option are administratively unattractive, particularly in Northamptonshire, a viable general hospital in Banbury would be able to continue to provide the services that it has been providing for many generations.
Horton, and people associated with it, are worried about the fact that other trusts in Oxfordshire are projecting major operating deficits. The Oxfordshire community health trust is projecting a deficit of £400,000, and the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust one of £700,000, rising to £2 million in the next three years. The regional health authority steering group's proposals seem to have

concentrated only on trying to eliminate Horton's deficits. If Horton merged, either partly or fully, with the community health trust or an acute trust that continued to experience financial difficulties, the trust involved would naturally be tempted to balance its books by cutting services at Horton.
I hope that if any proposals are conveyed to the Secretary of State about trust mergers in Oxfordshire, he will carefully consider whether they have the support of the Horton general hospital NHS trust board. The legal position relating to the dissolution of trusts, and the establishment of new trusts, is fairly complicated and it would be quite difficult to act against the express wishes of the local hospital.
As recently as 12 June, the Health Service Journal published a report that stated:
There has been no evaluation of the results of trust mergers, nor is there any systematic study of the advantages and disadvantages of integrated trusts or multi-site acute trusts… Experience from…the NHS suggests that mergers based on a shared vision of the future, and by consent rather than hostile takeovers, are more likely to succeed, take less time to produce benefits, and cost less.
In April, the university of York produced some interesting research that stated that, although concentrating services through trust mergers or service rationalisation may have been seen as a way of enabling NHS purchasers and providers under pressure to reduce management and operational costs,
there is no clear link between hospitals carrying out larger volumes of surgical procedures and having better outcomes; there is no evidence that cost savings are necessarily made by increasing hospital size above approximately 200 beds; concentrating services may reduce access to hospital care for patients living further away, particularly those who are older and poorer; experience shows that hospital mergers do not always result in the financial benefits that were initially anticipated.
I have two straightforward requests. First, I ask the Government to consider Oxfordshire health authority's funding overall. I am not asking for extra resources generally in the NHS; I am saying that existing NHS resources ought to be allocated more fairly, so that all health authorities are as near as possible to the national capitation funding formula. It seems ludicrous that authorities such as Oxfordshire should be consistently so far from the mean.
Secondly, Oxfordshire's underfunding is putting pressure on smaller units such as Horton general hospital NHS trust. I hope that if proposals are presented to the Secretary of State, he will have regard to the concerns of the trust board, those who work there and the patients whom the hospital has served, and wishes to continue to serve for many more years.

Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for allowing me time to speak. I am pleased to meet the Minister; I am sure that we will meet again on many occasions, given my interest in health.
As a former employee of the NHS and, indeed, the health authority in Oxfordshire, I have seen some of the problems described by the hon. Gentleman at first hand. I am also a product of the Oxford medical school, to which the hon. Gentleman paid tribute. I think that it is a testament to the ability of its teachers that, despite other interests that I pursued during my medical studies, I was able to graduate and pursue an NHS career.
It is clear that Oxfordshire health authority has a funding crisis, which means that it has a service crisis. My postbag is full of complaints about the time that is taken for people to be seen and about the lack of service provision. The Minister will be pleased to know that I do not blame the current Administration for that, but I add the word "yet".
In its election campaign, Labour committed itself to "saving the NHS". In the light of advice to ask quick questions, I have a one-word question—when? The slogan "14 days to save the NHS" which was used in April is probably optimistic, as is 14 weeks. In the meantime, Oxfordshire may see the precipitate closure of the unit that cares for the young disabled, a tripling of the number of people who have to wait more than 12 months for operations, terrible cuts in the community hospital trust with which Horton hospital is mooted to be merged, and a squeeze on county council and social services spending.
All that causes short-termism. That was alluded to in remarks about threatened cuts at the Chilton clinic, which looks after drug and alcohol abusers in the county. We must also bear it in mind that, when people have to wait for operations, they may enter hospital later as emergencies, which are far more expensive to deal with.
This year, the health authority's crisis was so deep that it almost ran out of cash last month. I did my best to help by taking unpaid leave in April for another purpose, which the House may be able to guess. However, the authority is still £4 million in debt, and it faces increasing pressures and growing waiting lists. As we have heard, Oxfordshire health authority is below its target, and such authorities rely on differential allocation of growth money to move towards targets.
It is important that authorities that have carried out strategic reviews base their future allocation of funding on a presumed rate of growth which is similar to that in earlier years. As Andrew Dilnot of the Institute of Fiscal Studies has explained, we now face cuts in some years, and effectively no growth for the next three years. It will be impossible to develop or preserve services while authorities are under target and there is no growth.
I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that, even after the £100 million efficiency savings that have been announced, more funding will be required in the NHS generally to avoid a winter crisis? I disagree with the hon. Member for Banbury on that issue, because I think that more money is needed.
Secondly, in the review of NHS spending and means of resourcing that the Secretary of State is currently undertaking, as new or increased charges are not ruled out, will higher general taxation or perhaps a new top rate of tax for those on very high incomes be considered? Perhaps that is the one measure which has been ruled out.
Thirdly, given the credit card pledge that was made during the election campaign to reduce waiting lists by 100,000, how long must we wait to see that commitment, which we support, being implemented?

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on securing the debate, and on the

terms in which he has addressed important issues about the funding of Oxfordshire health authority. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), not least for making some financial sacrifice to ensure that the health authority was better able to put more money into front-line patient services. I shall return to that theme. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government inherited extreme financial difficulties, which we do not expect to solve at a stroke.
Our legacy is extremely challenging. For example, waiting lists are rising not just in Oxfordshire but in many parts of the country. That makes our desire to honour our manifesto commitment to ensure that more money is applied to front-line patient services even more imperative.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already made rapid progress by cutting management costs by £100 million in this financial year. That is just the start, and we expect to continue to bear down on unnecessary bureaucratic costs in the NHS. The Government's priority and that of all hon. Members is to ensure that cash goes to where it is most needed in the NHS—to patient services. We shall certainly honour our commitment to treat an extra 100,000 patients as soon as we are able to do so.
The Government and everyone involved in the NHS know that this year will be particularly difficult and that it will not be possible to do all we would wish to do in an ideal world. That is one reason why I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate one health authority and the issues confronting it in some detail.
As the hon. Member for Banbury rightly said, Oxfordshire health authority has some financial difficulties. For the current year, it has an integrated revenue allocation of about £236 million. In real terms, that is a growth in income from the previous year of about £5.9 million.
As the hon. Gentleman said, despite that increase, under the current formula that is used for allocating the finite pot of available funds, Oxfordshire health authority remains some way short of its target. Last year, it was short by about 5.24 per cent., and this year, following changes to the resource allocation formula and the increase in funding, the authority is about 4 per cent. short of target. As he said, in percentage terms, Oxfordshire is the third most under-target authority in England.
Much has been said about the effect of the resource allocation formula on the health authority, and I know that it is concerned about the possible effects of any future changes. However, I make it clear that much of that concern is based on pure speculation. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would communicate that in clear and forceful terms to those in the health authority. The Government are committed to looking at how resources are distributed to primary and secondary care to ensure that they fully reflect local population needs, and that they operate as fairly as possible.
We intend to allocate resources on the basis of objective measures of need, so as to provide equitable access to care and therefore to reduce inequalities. Therefore, there may be changes to the formula which is used for allocations for the next financial year—1998–99, but at this stage neither I nor Oxfordshire health authority, despite its speculation, know what these changes amount to. As the authority has indulged in some speculation


about possible refinements to the formula and about how that could affect local residents, I shall deal rapidly with some of those points.
Oxfordshire health authority is concerned that insufficient weight is allocated to the problems associated with providing a service in a largely rural area. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about his constituency in that regard. Research has already been commissioned to investigate the possible extra costs that are associated with the provision of accident and emergency services and ambulance services in these areas. A report is expected in the autumn and the results will be carefully considered.
Oxfordshire has a major teaching hospital, the Radcliffe, and there are certainly higher costs in such hospitals than in those that do not teach medical students. Those additional costs are met from the service increment for teaching levy, which is paid directly to the hospitals concerned. Of all the health authorities that host major teaching hospitals, Oxfordshire has received the highest growth in its general revenue allocation.
In the context of the current formula and allocation, I shall now look at how Oxfordshire health authority is coping with the pressures that face it. As I have said, the Government inherited some financial difficulties from the previous Administration, and Oxfordshire health authority is not exempt from that pain. For the financial year that has just ended, the authority has a net forecast outturn deficit of some £2.9 million. Those are the latest figures and they may be subject to revision. The health authority is planning to rectify that financial imbalance during the current year. Consequently, it will have to face some painful decisions.
I understand that the chief executive of the authority has chosen to set the scene for those difficult choices in some colourful language, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Banbury, about the authority potentially "running out of pound notes". That colourful language is unhelpful, not least because it detracts from the serious efforts that are being made by the health authority to achieve financial balance. For example, I was struck by its establishment of a priorities forum, which is a good principle and a good idea. It has already started to reduce costs through the latest round of contracting with local hospitals.
I shall now deal with the issue that the hon. Member for Banbury raised about his local hospital, the Horton. A thorough review of the provision of health services for the people of Banbury and the surrounding areas has resulted in some interesting recommendations and a steering group of wide membership has been established to oversee their implementation. That is a good example of health authorities, trusts and local people working together to find solutions to problems rather than simply calling for more money or jumping to quick and easy solutions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and local people will support the review and will participate fully when preferred options are put before them for consultation later in the year. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points. He has established firm stakes in the ground and we shall bear that in mind.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALE

Mental Health Services (North Gwent)

Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the development of mental health services in north Gwent. [2594]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Gwent health authority is reviewing its mental health strategy. That review will be completed by November, when the authority will consider the options available to it.

Mr. Edwards: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the team on their appointment. For the first time in a long time, the Secretary of State for Wales represents a Welsh constituency.
May I express my concern at Gwent health authority's decision to cancel the Red Barn development—which was to be a new, modern psychiatric facility, following the closure of Pen-y-fal hospital—at the business ethos in the health service and at the way in which the private finance initiative is inappropriately used these days for services for mentally ill patients, including elderly people?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations to the whole Welsh Office team.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Red Barn PFI was taken before we came to power; the fact that it has not been able to proceed seems to show that it was not given the fullest consideration at the outset. However, I assure him that the patients from Pen-y-fal hospital have been moved to Maindiff Court hospital, where there are better facilities. If he has any reservations about what is happening there, I would of course be happy to hear from him. Gwent health authority is consulting widely on its proposals and I will want to be assured that any alternative that it brings forward will meet the needs of elderly mentally ill people in his constituency and throughout Gwent.

Minimum Wage (Clothing Industry)

.Mr. St. Aubyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of manual jobs in the Welsh clothing industry that would be lost as a result of the introduction of a minimum wage of £4 an hour. [2595]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We will ask the Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact on jobs in the Welsh clothing industry. I do not expect any jobs to be lost.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is it not clear that the Government have rushed into a commitment to a minimum wage without any clear idea of what the consequences might be? More than 200,000 people in Wales earn less than

£4 an hour. In, for example, the clothing industry, the likely result of a minimum wage is that businesses will either close or invest in automation, so that, far from there being a minimum wage, there will be no wage at all.

Mr. Hain: On the contrary, more and more businesses are coming out in support of the principle of a minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman probably has not read this morning's Western Mail, as he is not a Welsh Member of Parliament, but it reports that the Federation of Small Businesses, which I am meeting tomorrow, has welcomed a minimum wage and is willing to discuss how it should be implemented.

Mr. Wigley: Further to the Minister's comment a moment ago, does he accept that when the Federation of Small Businesses met in Llandudno in March, it voted in favour of a minimum wage order? It wants the minimum wage to be introduced in a coherent manner. Does the Minister accept that no Member of Parliament representing Wales would want people to earn £2 or £2.50 an hour as a means of competing with sweatshops in third-world countries? What we need to do in Wales, in the clothing industry and elsewhere, is to compete on quality, as we do with shops and businesses such as Laura Ashley and as we can do in a range of businesses, given a fair opportunity?

Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes the crucial point that Wales's only future as a world-beating economy is to be the best and not to go down the sweatshop economy route. I do not think that any Conservative Member would dare—perhaps some Conservatives would—pay someone in his employment just £2.50 an hour, yet that is what almost 60,000 workers in Wales earn. It is an absolute disgrace. A low pay strategy, through the minimum wage that the new Labour Government will implement, is designed to tackle that.

Welsh Assembly

.Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the proposed powers for the Welsh Assembly. [2596]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): The Welsh Assembly will provide democratic control of the existing Welsh Office functions; it will have power to make secondary legislation; and it will have specific powers to reform and control the quangos in Wales.

Dr. Marek: My right hon. Friend knows that I support him in his policy and will be campaigning on his side during the referendum campaign. He knows that he does not have to answer my question or even answer a different one, and he could give me a facetious answer. However, I ask him to give me a rational answer to the question why the Welsh people cannot be trusted with a question on the referendum paper about tax-varying powers for the Welsh Assembly. They should be able to say yes or no to that. After all, it is a power that even English parish councils have.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his promise of support in the forthcoming referendum. It is


precisely because we trust the people of Wales that we propose to vest in them the power to take greater control of their own affairs.
In relation to the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament, there are procedures in Westminster for the establishment of a separate body of Scots law. We believe it to be important that that provision, when it is transferred to the Scottish Parliament, is married to the ability to vary tax rates. We are not proposing that such a provision be devolved to Wales, so it follows that we are not proposing that tax-varying powers be devolved to Wales.

Mr. Hague: If, as the Secretary of State intends, any future Welsh Assembly takes over the powers and functions of the office of Secretary of State, is he proposing that his office will continue in existence and that his salary will remain the same?

Mr. Davies: I am glad that the shadow Secretary of State is in his place; it looks as though he will continue for some time in that role. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity of this first Welsh questions to announce yet another policy initiative, as he seems to have developed a remarkable intellectual flexibility.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the excellent speech made in the House of Lords yesterday by a former Welsh Minister, Viscount St. Davids. He made a forceful speech in favour of Welsh devolution. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be successful in our campaign to get democracy back to Wales. The role of Secretary of State will continue and we have no proposals to vary the salary of the office of Secretary of State.

Mr. Llew Smith: Is there any substance to the rumour that the original idea of 60 people serving on the Welsh Assembly has changed and the number has been increased to 80? What income levels are proposed for those people?

Mr. Davies: The proposal for a 60-person Assembly was the product of a lengthy debate in the Labour party in Wales. Our policy was adopted unanimously at our conference, held between 28 February and 1 March. It was included in the proposals that we put before all the people of Britain, which were unanimously endorsed in the general election on 1 May. We will include the detail in our White Paper, which will be published before the start of the recess. We have no proposals to vary our policy. The details of the salaries to be paid to Assembly persons will also be published in the White Paper.

Devolution

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the question to be put to Welsh local government electors as proposed in the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. [2597]

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have received several.

Mr. Jenkin: Can the Minister explain why the Welsh people will not be offered in the referendum the option of an Assembly with tax-raising powers? In Scotland, a Parliament without tax-raising powers is regarded by the Secretary of State for Scotland as a non sequitur.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had arrived but two minutes earlier, he would have heard a full response

to that question. I shall explain to him once more that the circumstances of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly are different. {HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They are different because we have put the proposals to the people. I remind Opposition Members that they were badly defeated on 1 May. We are happy to hold the referendums, for an Assembly without tax-raising powers in Wales and for a Parliament with tax-varying powers in Scotland.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister please confirm that the Welsh Assembly will have the power, or be obliged, to consider the overall structural approach in Wales, with regard to the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales? He will know, as all Welsh Members know, that the imbalance between job creation and investment in the east of Wales and that in the west has caused great concern. Is that not one sure subject for the Welsh Assembly to consider as soon as possible?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already announced that we will make an effort to extend prosperity throughout Wales, concentrating especially on western areas. I am sure that proposals will be made in the White Paper and that the Assembly will wish to pursue the matter with great vigour.

Public Spending

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's current budget for the level of public spending for the present and next financial year. [2598]

Mr. Ron Davies: My Department's budget for the current financial year is £6,894 million and, for 1998–99, £6,877 million.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Can he give me an assurance that those spending ceilings will be adhered to for the next two financial years? Can he also give me an assurance that the ceilings for the departments within that expenditure total will remain unaltered for the next two years? If the Secretary of State is unable to give me satisfaction on those two points, will he undertake to publish details of any changes that he may wish to make over those two financial years?

Mr. Ron Davies: On the first question, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. He was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government and followed the matters very closely, so I know that he will be pleased with that answer.
On the second question, the right hon. Gentleman would expect the Government to review all their spending plans, and we are doing that. My objective in the Welsh Office is to ensure that the expenditure that we will incur in the current year and in the next year better reflects our priorities. It follows from that that any changes we make to departmental expenditure will be published and we will allow hon. Members the opportunity to question the revised figures.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend not listen to the former Financial Secretary or the siren voices


from the Treasury? There is plenty of money around. The dreaded public sector borrowing requirement is falling even faster than anticipated, the contingency reserve has not been touched and, no doubt, the Treasury mandarins will come up with a few tax wheezes in the Budget. Will my right hon. Friend therefore press for more money for public services in Wales, because the health service, in particular, cannot take any more cuts?

Mr. Ron Davies: The message from the Treasury is not exactly that the country is awash with money. Details of the Budget are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Any representations made will be from within the ranks of Government and we will all have to wait until Budget day to find out their success or otherwise.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State please assure the House that he will continue with the Barnett formula for funding public expenditure in Wales? In the advent of a Welsh Assembly, will he put the formula into a statutory framework?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Barnett formula deals with the increases in the level of Welsh public expenditure, not with the block grant per se. The matters to which he refers are under discussion and we will make the full details available in the White Paper when we publish it next month.

Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and wish him well in the important work that he has to do for the people of Wales. Will he bear in mind the difficulties in primary schools in my constituency, for example, which need more teachers? Will his spending plans for the next year enable such help to be given?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes and I know that he will continue to give whatever service he can, both to his constituents and in sustaining the Government. He will know that one of the Government's established priorities is to reduce class sizes in primary schools. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for those matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has already taken early action in Wales to abolish the wasteful, bureaucratic and divisive nursery voucher system. We will move as quickly as we can to put resources into the primary sector, to fulfil our principal objective of reducing class sizes.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the Secretary of State to his appointment and wish him well in his duties. He will recall that the previous Administration, in their spending plans for Wales, originally made a commitment to spend public money to dual the A55 across the island of Anglesey. He will also know that the previous Secretary of State whipped away that money without telling anyone why he was doing so. Will the current Secretary of State assure me that the Government are committed to completing the programme and tell me how Ministers propose to finance it?

Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, during the general election, I took a close interest in progress on the A55, and it is a matter of some

regret that I was not successful in unseating him in that election. I should say that I make those remarks in a spirit of good humour, and I thank him for his good wishes.
The Government are committed to completing the A55, and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for those matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, is examining ways in which we can proceed. As I said, we are committed to the project, and I should like it to be completed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hague: Can the Secretary of State clarify for the House whether, in future Budgets, the running costs of the proposed Welsh Assembly will be drawn from the Welsh block grant or supplied by all United Kingdom taxpayers?

Mr. Davies: We have already made those points abundantly clear. In debate on the referendum proposals, the shadow Secretary of State asked several times about meeting the costs of the referendum. We made it—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Answer the question.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself, because I will answer the question. I know that he is an excitable fellow and that, today, there is a particularly febrile mood among Conservative Members. Nevertheless, a question has been asked and I will answer it.
The shadow Secretary of State will know that, during debate on referendum legislation and funding, we provided detailed answers to his question. He will also know that we have promised a White Paper, which will be available in July and contain full details of the cost and funding of the Assembly. He will undoubtedly still be shadow Secretary of State in July, and we can return to the matter then.

Inward Investment

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to attract more inward investment into Wales [2599]

Mr. Hain: Our commitments to improve the skills levels of our people, create a buoyant economy, improve the infrastructure and take a positive attitude towards the European Union and our proposals to create an economic powerhouse will make Wales even more attractive to inward investors.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reasons for the previous Government's extremely successful record of attracting inward investment to Wales were flexible labour policies, the lowest corporation tax in the Group of Seven and a willingness to fight for a free and fair market in Europe? If he does not agree with that analysis, how does he plan to encourage inward investment on the scale shown by LG, creating 6,000 jobs?

Mr. Hain: The reason LG came to Wales was that it knew that a Labour Government were on the way. The hon. Gentleman is completely ignorant of the reasons for the success of inward investment in Wales. The success


is due to the Welsh Development Agency, which was established by a Labour Government, pursuing policies of intervention and partnership—which were anathema to the Thatcherite, free-market dogma that, over the past 18 years, has destroyed jobs in Wales. Such dogma is why the Conservative party was wiped out in Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a new and very positive factor in inward investment decisions is that we no longer have a Government who are involved in Euro-bashing for the purposes of their own internal civil war but have a Government who, as was shown at the Amsterdam Council, are determined to play a full partnership role in Europe?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend, although whether the civil war will continue in the Conservative party remains to be seen. Certainly, the Laurel and Hardy act now about to take over the Tory party bodes ill for it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not, whether the money that is currently going to the Welsh Development Agency and is helping to bring investment to Wales will be reduced by the costs of having a Welsh Assembly? We know that the referendum will be paid for by the UK taxpayer, but we do not yet know whether it is to be paid for out of the Welsh Office vote and therefore out of the money going to Welsh development.

Mr. Hain: The answer is no. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government who were responsible in recent years for fleecing the WDA of many of its resources. We intend to strengthen the WDA in a new powerhouse for Wales, working with the Welsh Assembly to bring new investment, jobs, opportunities and prosperity.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans for the future operation of the Welsh Development Agency.[2600]

Mr. Ron Davies: The future of the Welsh Development Agency is being considered as part of our commitment to establish an economic powerhouse for Wales. That economic powerhouse will have a secure future. It will have funding on a sustainable basis and will be increasingly responsive to local needs.

Mr. Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the excellent work of the WDA over many years, my right hon. Friend will realise that there has been a substantial imbalance between east and west in its work, to the extent that about 80 per cent. of the inward investment, jobs and resources go to south-east Wales and to Clwyd, and only about 20 per cent. come west of Swansea and to Gwynedd. What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to readjust that balance so that we get fair shares across Wales?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes.
I acknowledge that, in recent years, there has been an imbalance in the rate of economic development in Wales. I recently met the chairman of the WDA and emphasised to him how important it is that we spread economic prosperity across the whole of Wales.
Of course, west Wales is one of the priority targets. There are some 620 acres under consideration for development in the west of Wales. The Velindre site is particularly important and is one of the best large-scale inward investment opportunities available in Wales. I want the WDA and the local authorities in the area to agree a joint venture on its promotion. If that comes about, I shall certainly give that site my full backing.

Post-16 Education

Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for post-16 education in Wales. [2601]

Mr. Hain: All young people will be offered part-time or full-time education post-16. Any under 18-year-old in a job will have the right to study on an approved course for qualifications at college. We will also promote learning throughout adult life.

Mr. Touhig: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities at the Welsh Office.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into further education which called for a more coherent strategy in the education of 16 to 19-year-olds? Will he take the steps necessary to end the damaging competition between colleges of further education, school sixth forms and training and enterprise councils, which the previous Government simply failed to do? Will he help to ensure the development of tertiary education throughout Wales, which offers students the widest possible choice of A-level and vocational courses—choices which we shall need if we are to create a highly skilled work force in a modern economy?

Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There is a damaging free-for-all in this sector of education provision which is infected by too much competition, waste and unnecessary duplication. That does not get the best out of the available resources or provide the best opportunities for our people. We shall review the entire sector, and in our White Paper to be published next month we shall propose steps to eliminate all those problems and provide a much better future for our people.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that those families who have 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education find the payment of child benefit extremely useful? Will he tell the House whether he will fight to ensure that those payments continue for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education?

Mr. Hain: The real problem for 16 to 18-year-olds is the dreadful legacy left by the Conservative Government, with rising unemployment in many parts of Wales in that section of the work force. We will provide new opportunities, new support, new training, new education opportunities and new jobs under the welfare-to-work programme, which will be financed out of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities.

Educational Opportunities

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to widen opportunity in education in Wales. [2602]

Mr. Hain: The Government will widen educational opportunity at every level. We will strengthen nursery provision; we will develop an improved qualifications framework which will prepare young people for employment, as well as for further study; and we will make it easier for adult learners to continue to study throughout their lives.

Mr. Flynn: I add my "croeso a llongyfarchiadau" to my hon. Friend on his new post.
New jobs are coming to my constituency from LG's investment, which was made in the certain knowledge that a Labour Government and a Welsh Assembly were on the way. Does my hon. Friend agree that although industry should provide the major part of training for new jobs, the Government must lend a hand, especially in providing for adults whose careers have been broken by redundancy and unemployment? Will he give an assurance today that there will be new initiatives from the new Government, especially in the form of a university for industry?

Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend—"diolch yn fawr".
We will certainly do as my hon. Friend urges and pursue active policies to provide new skills and training opportunities. I met the senior managers of LG on Monday and we are working in partnership with them to provide the best skills base for that important investment, so that the Welsh economy in my hon. Friend's constituency and in south Wales can move forward confidently.

Mr. Dafis: I draw the Minister's attention for the second time today to the predicament of higher education in Wales and the profound concerns arising from the present and predicted cuts in the higher education sector in Wales. Does he recognise that that sector is important, not only as a provider of education but as a component in economic revitalisation? Will the Welsh Office undertake to reverse those cuts next year, so that higher education institutions in Wales can take their place within an integrated strategy for sustainable economic development?

Mr. Hain: We will review all education provision in Wales, including the sector that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We will also propose a new way forward for Wales in school education, further education and higher education in our White Paper, which is to be published next month. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to that debate.

NHS Trusts (Running Costs)

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the running costs of NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [2603]

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government believe that, within the constraints imposed by the need to manage a

complex organization, management and administrative costs should be reduced to the minimum possible. We are committed to ensuring that savings can be identified and used for patient care; NHS trusts will contribute their share. In so doing, we have already announced the suspension of the extension of the GP fundholding scheme, pointed to practical ways of changing the internal market—[Interruption.]—and announced a review of the number and configuration of trusts in Wales, which should lead to a new pattern of trust-based services. I am glad that Conservative Members cheered my announcement.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that, one week after the election, the North Glamorgan NHS trust announced that it had to make savings of £750,000 and that the axe is now hanging over various services in Aberdare, including the rehabilitation ward, respite care and day surgery? May I say to him, very kindly, that the people of the Cynon valley voted Labour for a better NHS, not a worse one?

Mr. Griffiths: I have undertaken to visit North Glamorgan NHS trust. I am aware of its financial problems, but I have been informed that it intends to carry out a cost improvement programme, which will mean that all its existing contracts can continue to be fulfilled.

Mr. Burns: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House a categorical assurance that the obscenity of possible charges for hospital stays, for visiting a GP and for some prescriptions for pensioners will not happen in Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: I assure the shadow Minister that, under our current review of spending in Wales, all those proposals are not within the orbit of our consideration. Any discussion of those matters will be conducted at a United Kingdom level.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Visit (North Wiltshire)

Q l. Mr. Gray: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north Wiltshire. [2574]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have no plans to visit north Wiltshire at the present time.

Mr. Gray: When he does, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to visit Chippenham livestock market to speak to farmers, who are confident that the beef ban will have been at the top of his personal agenda in Amsterdam? If their confidence is well founded, will he explain the omission of any mention of beef in the presidency's conclusions?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that any Conservative Member has the nerve to raise the subject of beef, given what we inherited from the previous Government. I raised that matter on several occasions well before the Amsterdam summit. I am pleased to say that we are making progress, but, because we inherited probably the most incompetent mess that any Government


have ever inherited, it will take a little time. However, I think that the hon. Gent's constituents will get the deal that they need.

Engagements

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June. [2575]

The Prime Minister: I returned from the European summit in Amsterdam this morning. Later today, I shall be making a statement to the House and having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Shelter that homeless people should benefit as more and more council accommodation becomes available as a result of the release of capital receipts?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason why we are introducing legislation on capital receipts is to allow local authorities the prospect of making that money work for local people and of building homes for the homeless. In addition, as a result of the windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, young people will be given the chance to get decent skills and education. The combination of those two measures will at least begin to put right the appalling levels of homelessness that we inherited from the Conservative Government.

Mr. Major: Can the Prime Minister confirm that once his Government have completed their review of the national health service, all pensioners will still receive free prescriptions as of right?

The Prime Minister: This will be the right hon. Gentleman's very last Question Time. I should like simply to wish him well, as I am sure that the whole House will, and to say that, however strong our clashes were, he always behaved good naturedly and with dignity.
In respect of the review of the national health service, once one starts ruling things out, people say, "You have ruled this in; you have ruled that out." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of one thing: that, at the end of the review, we shall have a national health service that is fully consistent with the principles that we have set out. Those principles are that the health service will be based on need, not ability to pay, and will be fully consistent with our manifesto. He should not pay too much attention to stories in the press.

Mr. Major: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's graceful remarks at the outset, but not very enlightened by the rest of his reply. It did not answer my question, and it amounted to a definite "maybe".
I should like to quote what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that
charges are nothing more than an alternative form of taxation, regressive and highly damaging. In the case of the NHS, this amounts to a medical poll tax.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do—which is one reason why we want to review many of the charges imposed by the Conservative Government over a period of 18 years.

Mr. Luff: You are in government now.

The Prime Minister: Yes, we are. Our big problem is the mess that we were left by the previous Government. We shall be looking, for instance, at the prescriptions fraud, which costs about £85 million a year. We shall also look at another situation we have inherited: 59 out of 100 health authorities are in deficit, as a result of the Conservative Government. That is why it is sensible for any Government to look at getting value for money in the national health service. But we shall make sure that that is consistent with principle and with our manifesto commitments.

Mr. Major: I am tempted to ask whether anyone in the House has the faintest idea what that nonsense meant. I am even tempted to ask for a show of hands among Labour Members. Let me try and help the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of principle, will he or will he not rule out prescription charges for pensioners and so-called hotel charges for hospital visits—a straightforward yes or no?

The Prime Minister: As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, these matters are the result of press speculation. The review that we will carry out should be open ended. If we rule in this and rule out that, people will conclude that what has not been ruled out is ruled in and vice versa. It is nonsense.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a clear statement on the NHS so I shall give him one. We will have a national health service restored to the basic principles of the British NHS—the health service that we founded and the Conservative Government undermined. The right hon. Gentleman's Government spent £1.75 billion on health service bureaucracy. We shall spend that money on patient care. We will also look at the right way of getting value for money in the NHS—not by Tory methods but by ensuring that people get a fair deal once again from the health service.

Mr. Major: The more the right hon. Gentleman goes off the point, the more he loses the point. I think that we now know the answer: it is yes. If the Prime Minister can get away with it, there will be charges. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding. I repeat: if the Prime Minister can get away with it, there will be pensioner prescription charges and hotel charges. How does that square with his manifesto promise, which reads:
if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service here to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone"?
No mention of charges there.

The Prime Minister: I reconfirm precisely those words here today. The cheek of this lot talking about the health service! Who put up prescription charges 15 times? Who ran the national health service in such a way that people had to take up private health care because they could not


get proper health care in the health service? Who ended their term of office with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses in the service?

Mr. Evans: What about the pensioners?

The Prime Minister: What indeed? We would not have imposed VAT on pensioners' fuel. The idea that the Conservative party can ever have any credibility on the health service is a joke. Ours is the party that built it and will reform it. We will do that in the right way, based on need, not ability to pay.

Mr. Major: That was all very interesting, but it had nothing to do with my question, which the right hon. Gentleman has dodged time and again. Does not his sorry inability to answer a straightforward, direct question illustrate what we are learning about him daily? During the election, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to frighten pensioners by saying that their pensions were at risk, and he is now prepared to put their free national health service treatment at risk. Is that what he meant when he asked the British nation to trust him?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks why I could not answer his question straight. He asked me whether I agreed with the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and I said yes. I cannot get much straighter than that. I do agree with my right hon. Friend.
Who introduced charges for eye tests? The Conservatives did. Who introduced dental charges? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] Who ran the national health service in such a way that in many parts of the country there is no NHS dental treatment? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] I say to the right hon. Gentleman with great respect that the Conservatives will never be believed about the national health service—not in a million years—because of what they have done. People know that there are difficult choices to be made, and they want a party that believes in the health service to make them.

Dr. Marek: Has the Prime Minister anything against the Committee that is to consider the modernisation and workings of the House considering the oath that we must take to sit in this place, and possibly providing an alternative oath that Members could swear, genuinely upholding peace, democracy and human rights? If that were possible, it might just help the United Kingdom and make the House of Commons a more inclusive Chamber. [2576]

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear that there are no plans to change the oath of allegiance. I am sorry if that reply disappoints my hon. Friend, but it is the reply that I must give.

Mr. Ashdown: May I take a moment to echo the words of the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the leader of the Conservative party and former Prime Minister? The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and I, too, have had sharp words at times—they may have been worse than that sometimes—but in our private dealings he was unfailingly courteous and, more than that, unfailingly straight. He is the fourth longest-serving Prime Minister

this century, he led the country in time of war, he gave Ireland a chance for peace, and I venture to say that he is the only leader of the Conservative party who might have kept that lot together for the past three or four years. For that, the Conservatives should be grateful to him and we shall miss him—I think.
I now address the present Prime Minister. May we take it as read between us that everyone in the House will support the Government in bearing down on public expenditure? Do the Government yet realise that unless they can find a way out of the corner into which they have painted themselves, whereby they cannot even use the savings from other areas of Government expenditure to increase expenditure on health and education, the crisis in our schools and hospitals this winter will be as bad as or worse than any that we experienced in the Conservative years?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before. We are making savings and changing resources within the public spending totals—for example, in bureaucracy in the national health service, by phasing out the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes, and under the windfall tax. The direct increase in expenditure as a result of the windfall tax will have a benefit and will produce knock-on savings in the welfare payments being paid out.
As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last week, it is a matter not of painting ourselves into a corner, but of the public finances that we inherited. Under the Conservatives, as he knows, the national debt doubled. We will pay out a substantial amount this year in interest payments on that debt, even more than we will spend on law and order. For that reason, we must make sure that we keep a tight grip on public spending.

Mr. Ashdown: Let me make the Prime Minister a proposition. The last Government spent almost £1 billion on private consultants. if this Government were able to save £500 million on private consultants, would it then be their policy not to transfer that money in order to save teachers' jobs and prevent a winter crisis in our hospital wards? If so, I assure the Prime Minister that the millions of people who voted for his party and for mine will simply not understand why their hopes for better public services should be reduced to such dogma.

The Prime Minister: It is not dogmatic. Of course I am not trying to suggest that if there are sensible savings to be made, we cannot use them. The right hon. Gentleman says that we could find £1 billion in savings on private consultants, but there is no evidence of that. Savings can and will be made, but we will not be able to solve all the problems of the education system in the way that he suggests. It is more of a deception to try to pretend that than to face people and the responsibilities of government by ensuring that we do our best to get extra resources into the system. We will do that.
We can get additional resources because of the choices that we are making. The right hon. Gentleman kindly said that he had a proposition for me; I shall put one to him. If he is serious about doing something to reduce expenditure on waste in the system, would it not be better


for his party to support the windfall tax to give us the chance to provide young people with the skills and education that they need?

Mr. Connarty: The Prime Minister will recall in his recent people's question time being asked whether he would ensure that he considers the proposition that the sequestrated assets of criminals be used to finance better witness protection schemes. He may also be aware that I have raised in the House several times the tragedy of a beautiful village in my constituency that has been turned into the village from hell by a few vicious families against whom no one will go witness. Given that many people are now afraid to give evidence in court, will he ensure that the proposition put to him is given serious and urgent consideration? [2577]

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. [Interruption.] I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members seem to find this sort of matter amusing—or the idea that we should go out and talk to the public. They should understand that that is one of the reasons why they lost the last election.
Yes, I think it important that we examine the best protection that can be given to witnesses. As a result of the suggestions that were made last week when we conducted discussions in Worcester, we shall look specifically at two of the points put to us: first, at how to give better protection to witnesses so that they do not have to sit in the same room as defendants in court—victims occasionally have to do that also; and, secondly, at how the funds reclaimed from the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit people by preventing crime and by tackling some of the problems within the criminal justice system.

Mr. Maginnis: At a time when two murdered Royal Ulster Constabulary officers are being laid to rest—one of them in my constituency—will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA perversely exploit attempts by world leaders, such as President Clinton, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and himself, as they seek to encourage a sincere political process in Northern Ireland? Is the Prime Minister determined that such cruel mockery now necessitates his proverbial peace train leaving the station without Sinn Fein-IRA, who have again and again shown themselves to be ruthless killers and politically irredeemable?

The Prime Minister: First, may I say in response to the hon. Gentleman that the whole House expresses its sympathy for the victims of the appalling and callous murders earlier in the week. We extend our sympathy particularly to the families and to the young children who have been left without fathers. This was a wicked act for very obvious reasons. However, to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's point, it was a doubly wicked act as those responsible knew perfectly well about the chances and opportunities being taken to try to put the process back on track and reach a lasting political settlement. I believe—I think that the Taoiseach, the Irish Prime Minister, also believes—that that was done quite deliberately to frustrate this process, so it was a wicked

and callous act. I agree precisely with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Were there any discussions at the Amsterdam summit about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its impact on modern Europe, or about any other more contemporary political alliances on the future of Europe between total political opposites in a marriage of modern political public convenience, such as that between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which was announced this morning? [2578]

The Prime Minister: I was sitting at the Amsterdam summit opposite President Chirac and Mr. Jospin, little knowing that when I returned to Britain the concept of cohabitation would have descended upon the British Conservative party.

Mr. Key: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that Britain's tourist industry is extremely important and that our built heritage and natural heritage are the reasons for that industry. Does he therefore agree that the visitor facilities at Stonehenge remain a national disgrace? Given that no millennium money from the national lottery or taxpayers' money will be spent on it, will he consider closing Stonehenge this autumn to give the Government breathing space to think up a sensible solution to what has become a national disgrace and could become a national scandal?

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Stonehenge, which he has expressed over many years. According to the advice that we have received from English Heritage, it is neither necessary nor sensible to close Stonehenge. He will be aware, however, that discussions are going on with English Heritage about how Stonehenge could be improved. We take an interest in that and hope that those discussions will succeed. I believe that half a million people, or perhaps almost 1 million people, visit Stonehenge every year. It is obviously a national monument of great importance and we will do whatever we can to safeguard it. I am advised, however, that its closure is neither necessary nor sensible.

Mr. McNulty: Does the Prime Minister agree that the repeated assurances of the previous Government that class sizes had no consequence on educational performance defied the instincts of all parents and common sense? [2579]

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence to suggest that smaller class sizes are absolutely essential for five, six and seven-year-olds to give them a decent education. More than 500,000 children of those ages are in classes of more than 30. I think that anyone would understand that, in those circumstances, a child is less able to get the basic grounding in literacy and numeracy that he needs, and on which we have fallen behind. That is why I urge Conservative Members, even at this late stage, to support our Bill, which would allow us to use public money for public education.

Mr. Boswell: The Prime Minister will not mind, I am sure, if I return to the important subject of public


expenditure. In the light of a recent written answer that I received, which suggested that there is no intention of revealing the additional spending commitments of his Government, will he please tell the House whether that is a failure on the part of the machinery of government or simply of inclination?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the Budget, which will be presented shortly, when we will make any such commitments as we may have perfectly clear to him.

Sanctions (Libya)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for policy in relation to approaching the UN to lift sanctions against Libya of the acquittal of Juval Aviv by an American court. [2580]

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Juval Aviv has been acquitted by an American court. We are also aware of the allegations that have been made by him, but the advice that I have received is that it does not alter the case that the existing evidence in respect of those who perpetrated the Lockerbie bombing suggests that it was carried out by Libyans.
I believe that the United Nations Security Council sanctions should remain until the Security Council resolutions are properly and fully complied with; they are not being complied with at the moment.

Mr. Dalyell: If that is the case, and in the light of last Wednesday's Adjournment debate when I told of the scepticism of Professor Robert Black, professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh, and the profound scepticism of Peter Anderson of Simpson Marwick—after all, that firm acted as the lawyers for Pan Am—do we have the Prime Minister's assurance that he is absolutely sure that the Crown Office has the evidence to prosecute successfully, which it has claimed to have? If there is a scintilla of doubt about the advice that he has received, would he consider appointing either a European judge or a judge of the Court of Appeal in England to examine what the Crown Office says that it has?

The Prime Minister: The short answer is that the advice that I have received is that the evidence is still clear on this point. Partly as a result of the trial of Mr. Aviv, and as a result of many other allegations and counter-allegations that are made, which are sifted carefully, the process is kept under continual review and re-evaluation, as it should be. At present, the evidence is still clear, in so far as there is evidence about who perpetrated the Lockerbie bomb, and it points to Libyan involvement. The United Nations Security Council resolutions are still in place because they have not been complied with. Until they are, in my view those sanctions should remain.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the real agony sustained by the relatives of those who lost their lives in this dreadful bombing, would the Prime Minister be at least willing to make a positive and constructive approach to Libya to ensure that the trial takes place, especially as Libya has offered to hand over the two suspects to a third

country? Might not an ideal compromise be a trial in Malta, where it is alleged that the disaster was initiated? Would not the Prime Minister be willing to try to get a trial somewhere and somehow to bring relief to the relatives?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the plain fact is that there is the opportunity of having a trial if the suspects are handed over. I do not believe that it is fair to say that a trial, for example, in Scotland, would be unfair in any shape or form. I think that that would be a wrong reflection on the legal system there. Of course, we continually try every avenue that we can to make progress in this matter, but I do not think that I can hold out some hope to the hon. Gentleman that we will reverse the policy that the previous Government adopted, which, in this instance at least, I support.

Engagements

Mr. Kemp: Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorised any of his officials to make a statement that appeared in today's press to the effect that the future of the Conservative party is in the hands of 38 people from the planet Zog? And if not, why not? [2581]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for that. What a waste of a question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Yeo: Will the Prime Minister confirm that if any of his Cabinet Ministers are found to have knowingly misled the House of Commons, that Minister will be expected to resign?

The Prime Minister: I have always made it clear that those Ministers who knowingly, deliberately or seriously mislead the House of Commons should not be in the Government. I have always made that clear and I make it clear again today. I hope that the values that this Government have undertaken to work with are somewhat different from those of the previous Government.

Mr. Stevenson: Is it not a scandal that thousands of our children and young people are being taught in dilapidated buildings? Is it not a fact that that is a direct result of a deliberate policy of chronic neglect by the Conservative party when it was in government? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under this Government this completely unacceptable situation will be dealt with as a matter of priority? [2582]

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. Of course it is important that we begin to put right the damage done over a period of years. The plain fact of the matter is that the previous Government were one of the very few Governments anywhere to preside over a situation where the proportion of national income spent on education fell, although the social security and welfare bills rose enormously. It is precisely for that reason that we do not see additional expenditure on education as enough in itself. It must be accompanied by measures that reduce the huge and appalling burden of social and economic failure that is the product of the past 18 years. It is both those things going together that allows us to get as much


money as possible into the areas of productive investment and to get us out of social failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where from?"] How about by reducing the numbers of young people on the dole? That is where from.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he spent three years answering questions in opposition—[Laughter.]—asking questions in opposition, slamming the previous Government's record on possible charges in the health service, and that he fought the recent

election on the basis that the Conservative Government might introduce such charges, yet today cannot rule out prescription charges for pensioners or hotel charges for everybody else when they enter hospital? Is that not a betrayal?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the outcome of the review. I can tell him that we shall fight the next election on a platform of renewing and improving the national health service after 18 years of Conservative failure.

European Council (Amsterdam)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Amsterdam on 16 and 17 June, which I attended with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library and I will place a full copy of the text of the Amsterdam treaty there as soon as possible.
Our aims in the negotiations were to protect our essential interests over immigration, foreign policy, defence and a central role for Britain in Europe, to promote changes of real interest to the British people and to move Europe on to a new and positive agenda. We also promised to bring a fresh and constructive approach to Europe and to the negotiations.
I am happy to tell the House that those objectives have been fully achieved—and they were achieved while at the same time improving both our standing in Europe and our relationships with our European partners.
First, we have obtained legal security for our frontier controls, through a legally binding protocol to the treaty. That is an achievement of lasting value, attained for the first time. The key point in the protocol says:
The United Kingdom shall be entitled…to exercise at its frontiers with other member states such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it may consider necessary for the purpose.
I know that that will be welcomed by the whole House. We have ensured that we, and only we, decide border policy, and that policies on immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels.
Others may choose to have different arrangements, to suit their traditions and geographical position. I see no reason for preventing them from doing so, although such arrangements will continue to be governed by unanimity. Under the treaty, the United Kingdom can also participate in areas of interest to us if we so choose, at our option. That is not an opt-out but an opt-in, as we choose.
In the justice and home affairs area, we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs. I attach great importance to more effective international action in those areas of direct concern to people. However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured, the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues.
We have also ensured continued protection for our essential interests in all the areas in which we sought it. We have maintained, as we said we would, the veto on matters of foreign policy, defence, treaty change, Community finances and tax.
We have prevented the extension of qualified majority voting in areas where it might cause damage. Others wanted to extend QMV in the social chapter, which would have affected our companies even if we had not been party to the chapter. Because we were in it, we were able to stop that. We agreed to QMV where it is in our national interests—for example, on research and development and on action to combat fraud and waste.
We have also ruled out other potentially damaging proposals. For example, others wanted to give the European Union explicit legal personality across all the pillars of the treaty. At our insistence, that was removed. Moreover, the treaty spells out that international agreements can be concluded only on the basis of unanimity following a clear Council decision. In addition, we secured a veto over flexibility arrangements which could otherwise have allowed the development of a hard core, excluding us against our will.
Second, for the first time in a decade Britain is setting a positive agenda for Europe. In April, I set out in Manchester our platform for reform: completion of the single market, a new emphasis on flexible labour markets and education and skills, reform of wasteful policies in agriculture and elsewhere, enlargement and a more effective common foreign and security policy. Each of those elements was fully reflected at Amsterdam, in the intergovernmental conference or the Council conclusions. In particular, we successfully promoted support for a new action plan for the single market that echoes key British concerns. That should, in time, lead to further opening of Europe's markets to British companies. Completing the single market will be one of the top priorities for the British presidency.
Third, we have put jobs at the top of Europe's agenda, where they belong. The new treaty chapter on employment recognises the importance of job creation and sets member states and the Community the task of promoting flexible labour markets, and education and skills. That is where Europe must make a difference.
Fourth, the treaty makes Europe more relevant to people: it ensures greater openness; it increases powers to combat fraud and waste; it strengthens environmental protection; it creates power to act against discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion or disability; it gives subsidiarity—ensuring that decisions are taken at the European level only if there is real added value in doing so—real teeth through a binding protocol; and it imposes an obligation to take into account the welfare of animals.
Fifth, the treaty prepares the institutions of the Union for enlargement. Not as much progress was made on that as there might have been, but we have ensured that, at the time of enlargement, the Council's voting system will be changed to give Britain and other large countries more votes. Europe must now get on with making a reality of the historic opportunity of enlargement. We need to extend our stability and prosperity to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. The European Council is committed to decisions on the opening of enlargement negotiations at its meeting in December. We shall play a leading role in those negotiations, particularly during our presidency.
Sixth, while retaining our veto, we have taken steps to improve the effectiveness of foreign policy co-operation with better planning and co-ordination. That is an important British interest, but getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for—and won—the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence.
The House will also be interested to know that the treaty contains provisions to strengthen Parliament's ability to scrutinise European legislation properly, by laying down a minimum six-week period for documents to be available.
We also made real progress in Amsterdam on the problem of quota hoppers—fishermen from other member states who fish against British quotas—even though it was not part of the IGC.
We secured an agreement with the Commission on our two central concerns. First, we are entitled to put into law a clear economic link between boats using our quotas and Britain. Economic benefits from boats flying the British flag should go to British ports, for example through a proviso that 50 per cent. of a boat's catch should be landed locally. We will, with all possible speed, introduce new licence conditions to reflect that. Second, the Commission agreed to bring forward new tougher measures of enforcement to ensure that fishermen landing their catch abroad cannot escape controls. Those measures are agreed by qualified majority voting and so cannot be blocked by another member state.
Taken together, those agreements will mean a major disincentive to quota hoppers, present and future. Commission agreement to the new measures means that their vulnerability to legal challenge—a perennial problem hitherto—should be greatly reduced.
The letters between myself and the President of the Commission setting out those agreements are in the Library. The Commission's letter also confirms that important principles underlying the common fisheries policy, notably relative stability and the provisions on 12-mile limits, should remain when they are reviewed in 2002.
Those commitments allow us to start working with fishermen from around the country to plan a sustainable future for the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a more detailed statement immediately after this.
On economic and monetary union, the documents discussed by the House on 9 June were approved. I made it clear that the entry conditions should be strictly applied and that sustainable convergence is essential if monetary union is to go ahead successfully.
The European Council also agreed a resolution on employment, with British ideas at the centre of it. We have shown that, alongside low inflation and sound public finances, Europe needs a new approach to employment and growth, based on British ideas for competitiveness, introducing more flexible labour markets and employability. That means creating a more skilled and adaptable work force, better equipped to cope with economic change. It also means a new emphasis on getting people off welfare and into work. It does not mean the old agenda of tax and spend; no new money from the Community budget was agreed at Amsterdam. That is the right approach, in or out of monetary union.
The successful conclusion of the intergovernmental conference enables Europe to put institutional wrangles behind it and to move on to the issues that affect people's daily lives: jobs, the environment, crime. Progress in those areas will be our priority. We are determined not to let Europe get bogged down again in minutiae. If we are to build a people's Europe, we must stay focused on the people's concerns.
We said that we would secure our frontiers, and we did. We said that we would preserve NATO, not the European Union, as the cornerstone of the defence of Europe, and we did. We said that we would get a new deal for our fishing communities, and we did. We said that we would put jobs at the top of the agenda for Europe, and we did. We said that we would start to make Europe more relevant to the concerns of the peoples of Europe, and we did.
We made Britain's voice heard at Amsterdam, because, for the first time for many years, Britain spoke as a united Government with a clear direction for Europe. We have proved to the people of Britain that we can get a better deal by being constructive, and we have proved to Europe that Britain can be a leading player, setting a new agenda that faces the real challenges of the new century.

Mr. John Major: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for returning to the House speedily to deliver it.
In some areas, I can support the Prime Minister's statement, although in others the implications of what he has agreed have yet to be more fully set out than he has been able to set them out today. As the House will know, the documentation is extensive, and it is not yet fully available. I hope that the Prime Minister can confirm that the House will have the opportunity of a debate as soon as it has had a chance to study the implications of what he has negotiated.
Will the Prime Minister also confirm that the treaty as originally envisaged is not yet complete, and that large and important areas have not yet been decided and, indeed, were not mentioned in his statement? Can he tell us how many of the points that he has announced today will need legislation? As many of them are constitutional, can he confirm that those constitutional points will be debated here, on the Floor of the House, in due course when the legislation is introduced?
At the outset, let me probe what seems to have been agreed on NATO and on border control. On defence, the Prime Minister is entirely right to resist merging the European Union with the Western European Union, and he has our full and unqualified support for doing so; but may I check precisely what he has agreed to? Notwithstanding his assurances to the House, the draft treaty talks of
the objective of gradual integration of the Western European Union into the European Union".
When and how is that to happen?
The Dutch presidency has said that
for the first time Britain has conceded the principle of integrating defence in the European union".
Is that correct? Can the Prime Minister clarify the matter or explain why the presidency should have said that if it is not the case? How does that square with what the Prime Minister has been saying?
On border controls, is the Prime Minister aware that he has our complete and unqualified support in maintaining the control of this House over this country's national borders? There can be no question about that. Is it not a fact, however, that the agreement on border control was effectively achieved by last March, when our partners accepted that Britain would never give up border control? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Dutch presidency made that clear then? If he cannot, I will hand him the quotes and the reports of the time which illustrate that that was indeed the case.
Is not the reality that this outcome—which is very welcome—was achieved by negotiations conducted by the last Government, and that what the Prime Minister has done is apply his usual jackdaw technique of picking up other people's property and claiming credit for it?
Can the Prime Minister also clarify the impact that Amsterdam has had on other elements of justice and home affairs? Is it not the case that the Government have an opt-out only on border controls? Where exactly do they stand on the new title on asylum and immigration that is proposed in the draft treaty? It is not clear from what the Prime Minister had to say. Could he tell me whether the European Court of Justice and the Commission's remit has been extended, as seems to have been done, to cover asylum and immigration? Is it not the case that the Council of Ministers, at a later date, will consider extending qualified majority voting to this area?
Could I ask the Prime Minister to outline the implications of the treaty for the European Court of Justice? Can he confirm to the House that he dropped the previous Government's proposals to reform the European Court of Justice although some of them had support from some of our European partners? Can he also confirm that he has achieved nothing to limit the damaging effect of retrospective application of European Court of Justice judgments?
On qualified majority voting, can the Prime Minister confirm in which areas he has given up the veto and explain how that will be of benefit to the House or the British nation? Can he also tell the House whether there are other areas where our veto has been bypassed or will be revisited at a later date?
The Prime Minister said that jobs were at the top of his agenda. Can he name any precise and practical measures that have been agreed at this summit that will create jobs other than for lawyers interpreting the treaty? Can he confirm that the social chapter will be integrated in the treaty, making a mockery of the claim to extend labour market flexibility? Can he also confirm that, utterly contrary to what he said in the general election campaign, this extends qualified majority voting to a wide range of new and important areas? What precisely has he agreed—an employment chapter with teeth that imposes costs and interferes, or an employment chapter with no teeth that raises expectations that it cannot meet?
Can the Prime Minister clarify what he has agreed on flexibility? He says that he has a veto, but can he indicate what agreement he has reached with his colleagues as to the areas in which he would permit this new flexibility to proceed by unanimity?
On common foreign policy where the Prime Minister's statement was particularly unclear, can he tell the House what is meant by common strategies? To what extent will decisions of the Council on common foreign and security policy be made by qualified majority voting? [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like these questions, but they should have been in the Prime Minister's statement and they were not.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House who will adjudicate on what is national policy and, therefore, to be decided by unanimity? On quota hopping, we look forward to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food in a few moments, but the Prime Minister should know that the Spanish have already poured scorn on his claims to have solved quota hopping. He agreed in the election that it could be effectively dealt with only by treaty changes, but does not his agreement depend entirely on Commission good will and will not it seek to look after the interests of not just this country but Dutch, Spanish and other interests as well? Is not it the case that he made not the slightest attempt to push through the treaty changes that were the only way to guarantee help for British fishermen?
On enlargement, the Foreign Secretary extolled the virtues last week of a wider Europe, and we agree with him on that, but where is the progress on enlargement in the treaty? Where was the agreement over institutional reform, on the number of Commissioners, on voting weights? What practical measures will be taken to ensure that new countries are welcomed into the Community? Is it not a fact that this treaty does nothing whatever to help build the wider Europe that the Prime Minister says that he wishes to see and which I wish to see, but does help to create a deeper and more centrally integrated Europe?
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's agreements we can welcome; others suggest that this is both a botched and an incomplete negotiation that he is reporting to the House. It will certainly cause dismay in central and eastern Europe, as he should know. Much of what the Prime Minister has just won he inherited, and much of the rest was never at risk, as he knows. The Prime Minister has made a series of concessions to the European Union. He has gained nothing that was not readily available and he has done nothing whatever to widen the Community and much to ensure that it is deepened. He has missed the opportunities of the summit. What he has reported is not a triumph but a travesty.

The Prime Minister: Well, that was a good try anyway. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, that on 9 June he made a speech in the House where he took the Labour Government to task for, he said, being about to sell out and give away a whole lot of things. Apart from issues such as the social chapter and employment chapter, where we are in genuine disagreement, I think that we have secured agreement on every single point that he made in that speech, as well as on certain things that he did not mention, such as legal personality, which he said we would never possibly get taken out of the treaty—and we did.
Anyway, if I may deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, of course the intergovernmental conference will require legislation. As for debating it on the Floor of the House, that will be discussed by the business managers in the normal way, but, of course, it will be properly debated. As for what he was saying about the WEU and EU and gradual integration, of course, the draft treaty text was precisely what was changed, so we now have a situation where there is no obligation to move into integration at all. That is the very thing that we managed to secure.
What is more, for the first time, we have secured a specific statement in the treaty that says that NATO for us is the foundation of our common defence. That is a huge step forward. It is what we never had before and we have now.
In relation to border controls, the right hon. Gentleman says that last March they had all got an agreement. I have to say that that is not our understanding of it. He was in


power for 18 years, during which time they did not secure that at any point—either under him or under the previous Prime Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about asylum and immigration. We have no obligation to be in that at all, but what we have secured, which is important and a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in. We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in. For example, the European Court of Justice role in Schengen, which he was talking about, does not affect us.
It is more sensible to realise that the rest of Europe has a genuine, different interest. In the rest of Europe, people want a uniform system of asylum, immigration and visa policy throughout the continent of Europe—and they want it, in many ways, to toughen their immigration and asylum policy. There are severe problems in many of the countries, not least Germany, because of the asylum and immigration policies that they have.
Our interest is different and there is no harm in recognising that there are different interests. The purpose of the protocol is to secure our legal frontiers, but to allow other countries, if they want to do things differently, to have another system, with our having the power to join them if we want to, but being under no obligation to do so.
In relation to QMV, we secured unanimity in all the areas where we wanted it, such as immigration. We made sure that the national veto was preserved in all the areas that we wanted, but, yes, there were some areas in which I agreed an extension of QMV—research, for example. It is important for this country that we have QMV in certain areas. It is a good thing for us, not a bad thing. Fraud is one such area. It is good that we have QMV in certain areas because we can then prevent smaller countries from blocking our interest.
The curious thing about the psychology of the Conservative party—which has become more curious today in this great new alliance, this meeting of minds—is that the greatest extension of QMV was agreed by the Conservative Government and that the very greatest extension was by Baroness Thatcher at the time of the Single European Act. That was the right thing to do. I do not say that as a point of criticism because if people can block measures opening up the single market, that is an inhibition on the effective working of the EU.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the employment chapter. Incidentally, we secured a benefit from being part of the social chapter because there were moves by other countries to extend QMV to areas in social security and elsewhere that we did not want. If we were not part of it, they would have done it, and it would have been part of the social chapter. He would say, "Well, we had our opt-out", but experience teaches us that, in fact, these things still affect British companies operating on a European-wide basis. By being part of it, we were able to ensure that the social chapter was drafted sensibly.
On the employment chapter, heaven knows why the right hon. Gentleman's Government opposed that. It is a perfectly sensible measure. I do not know whether he was attacking it for being too prescriptive or for not being prescriptive enough. It provides the opportunity for measures to be taken, for example, to assist small businesses. That is a perfectly good thing. It sets the

creation of jobs at the core of the employment chapter, in a way that is responsive to economic change. That is a big step forward for us and for our arguments.
In relation to flexibility, the right hon. Gentleman asked us to secure an emergency brake at Amsterdam, and we secured it. We are protected there, as we are protected in the common foreign and security policy.
The two final points relate to enlargement and to the common fisheries policy. On the latter, when we came to power there was not a single member state that supported the right hon. Gentleman's proposed treaty protocol. It was without any credibility and, incidentally, it would not have dealt with existing quota hoppers. We have secured not the Commission's good will, but its agreement and support for changing the licence conditions for vessels operating in this country, which will allow us to deal with both existing and future quota hoppers. Of course, that does not do everything that we would want to do—

Mr. David Davis: The Spanish may go to court.

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Spaniards may take us to court—but, for the first time, we will have the Commission's support in defeating them. That is what is important. It is considerably better than tabling a protocol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dream on!"] Hon. Members may say "Dream on", but the truth is that the protocol required the unanimous support of all other countries, but not one of them supported it.
On enlargement, the reform of the common agricultural policy and the single market are mentioned in the conclusions. I should like there to be more progress on the institutional mechanisms. We tried to secure that, but it was not possible. However, we shall continue trying to secure the very best deal possible for Britain and for the process of enlargement. We believe in enlargement. It is important and it is something which we owe the emerging democracies in the east of Europe.
I say to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that by playing a sensible and constructive role in Europe, we have a better chance of getting enlargement on our terms.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the Prime Minister's not unjustifiably long list of the Government's successes at Amsterdam, I was glad to note that he did not include something that was claimed by his spokesman and some of his Ministers—that the Government were responsible for the rescue of monetary union. The Financial Times has a quotation from Amsterdam:
You could say we have rescued EMU"—
said a member of the Government; I wonder who that could be—
although I would be grateful if you did not say it too loudly.
Perhaps I could say, not too loudly, that it is a little bizarre to claim to have rescued an organisation that the Government have not yet decided to join.
The right thing to say about the Amsterdam summit is that it was a modest achievement in the progress that needs to be made in Europe in tackling the challenges that lie ahead of it. Some have called the summit a failure—it was not, it was a disappointment. The Government are entitled to claim success in the things that the Prime


Minister listed and we welcome those successes, not least because they were aims that we, too, wanted to be achieved at Amsterdam.
However, there is an exception. I think that the Government misunderstand the process now in place for the integration of European defence and foreign policy. I do not think that the Prime Minister was right to say that NATO has not previously appeared in a treaty text in the way that he described. I note that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), is nodding. If my memory is not wrong, NATO appeared quite explicitly in the Maastricht text, which said that nothing undertaken under the treaty should prejudice the importance of NATO. No one I know in Europe wants to get rid of NATO. However, building a second European pillar—which, over time, must mean the WEU being integrated into the European Union—will not undermine NATO; it will strengthen it.
That having been said, does the Prime Minister agree that the summit is marked not by the work it did, but by the work left to be done? Is it not true that there is a great deal of work to be done, perhaps at some future intergovernmental conference—surely there must be one—to prepare the way for enlargement and to complete the process of institutional change? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with the progress in, for example, the democratisation and accountability of the European institutions and in other areas that need to be dealt with before Europe can move forward. That is important, and I hope that the Prime Minister will agree.
We should dispose of the leftovers of the Maastricht treaty and move on to the new agenda of creating a people's Europe, which is less about the Europe of political elites and more about the Europe that delivers what people in Europe want. It is only through that that we can bind Europe's institution and move forward sensibly in the process of integration.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. On the rescue of EMU, it is not for us to rescue it or otherwise. I thought that he was a great proponent of EMU—

Mr. Ashdown: I am.

The Prime Minister: Then he should be grateful to whoever said it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a summit of disappointment, but that is not entirely correct. There was progress on jobs, crime and the environment. The summit was more a staging post on the way to try to reshape the European agenda, which is important. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about a people's Europe and I have said that myself.
On NATO and the arguments about an EU-WEU merger, I did not say that NATO had never been mentioned in the texts. It was mentioned, but the importance was that common defence and a common defence policy was actually contemplated in the Maastricht treaty that was negotiated by the previous Government. What we have done is put into the treaty words that indicate that we see our common defence as founded on and realised through NATO. That is an

important difference, because it defines common defence in the perspective of NATO within the context of the treaty. It is important that we have secured that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a lot more to do, especially on enlargement. It is important to move that agenda forward and we are better placed as a country to play a proper role in that than we were before.

Several hon, Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The questions and answers from the two major Opposition party leaders have taken more than half an hour. I now seek one brisk question each from Members and I ask the Prime Minister also to make a brisk response. Otherwise, I will not be able to call many Members.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that if economic and monetary union proceeds and a single currency comes on to the agenda, there will be a free vote in the House on that matter, so that the decision is made by the people here and not by a political elite?

The Prime Minister: It is more than that. We have said that if the issue of monetary union comes on to the agenda in this Parliament, it will be a matter for a referendum of the British people. We do not know whether that will be the case or not. Our position—to retain the option to join if we wish, and we have already made our statements on that—remains as is and it will not alter.

Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that the summit was not a success on defence, because he has conceded—as the Dutch presidency has said—the principle that defence is now in the treaty in the sense that there is a common purpose and direction? In binding NATO in as a reference, the Prime Minister has provided an opportunity for others to build a common defence—albeit around NATO—that was not there before.

The Prime Minister: No, that is simply factually wrong. The first time the ideas of common defence and a common defence policy appeared in European treaties was when they were negotiated by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). We are under no obligation, under the text that we have negotiated, to merge the EU and WEU. Indeed, as I have said, we have the right to have our common defence founded in NATO.

Mr. Giles Radice: Despite the mean-minded response of the previous Prime Minister, does not the successful outcome of the Amsterdam summit show that a constructive approach by Britain yields results for British interests in jobs, border controls, defence, crime and drugs, as well as providing a new hope and dynamism for Europe?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that and he is correct. It is in British interests to be part of Europe. If we are part of Europe, it is in British interests to be constructive and engaged. Of course, we must protect our national interests, and all countries do. The absurdity of the foreign policy of the previous


Government was that, in the end, the policy was directed at party and not at the interests of the country. That is what has to change

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Prime Minister accept that the exemption on border controls will be widely welcomed because—regardless of who negotiated what, when or how they were prompted—the issue has been fudged since the introduction of the Single European Act? Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted that exemption? Will he tell the House whether the European Court will now have jurisdiction over all European conventions—including, once it is ratified, the external frontiers convention?

The Prime Minister: None of those matters will apply to Britain unless we wish them to do so, and that is the advantage that we have gained. On preliminary rulings of the European Court of Justice, we secured changes to the text that will mean that other states will have to opt in if the European Court is to have jurisdiction. That change is another considerable advance.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the exemption on border controls; it is important that such an exemption is actually written into the treaty. If it had not been written in the treaty, there would have been a danger that, over time, our ability to control our own borders would be eliminated.

Mr. Stuart Bell: While I welcome the Prime Minister's statement on employment and growth, he did not specifically mention completing the single market. Will he confirm that completing the single market will in itself create a fundamental attack on unemployment across the European Union?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The previous Prime Minister asked me what the employment chapter will do. One of the important things that it has done is to signal a different approach. By placing right at the forefront the single market action plan, which has been championed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by placing action to make people more employable in a different labour market right at the heart of the test on jobs—rather than old-style interventionism, regulation and all the rest of it—we have sent the right message and signal on employment and growth.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister went to Amsterdam with the intention of extending QMV to environmental policy. As I understand it, that applies only under article 130s of the Maastricht treaty. Did he succeed?

The Prime Minister: We actually stopped it applying to taxation, thereby ensuring that we were completely protected on that matter. Ultimately, there were very few extensions of QMV, partly because of the considerations of states other than Britain. There were very few—

Mr. Gary Streeter: How many?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will see them.
The extensions are very minor, and I should like gently to try to persuade hon. Members of that. It was right for us to agree all the extensions of QMV that have been agreed. I will put the case higher and say that I was arguing for extension of QMV in matters such as research and combating fraud, because British interests are currently being blocked by one or two nations that are acting in a manner that is contrary to the interests of proper finance in either the European Union or the single market. I ask Conservative Members—in their current period of reflection and, perhaps, new spirit of coming together—to liberate themselves from some of the paranoia that gripped them while they were in government.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be a welcome in the country for the priority that the Council presidency has given to employment and job creation in the employment chapter and the social chapter? Will he comment on the timing implications of that commitment to employment and jobs for EMU and the 1999 start date?

The Prime Minister: The truth of the matter is that we simply do not know whether that date will be achieved, although other countries are extremely anxious that it should be. What is important for Britain is to keep our own position very clear and unchanged, and to ensure-as we did when the issue arose in Amsterdam—that we get our principles right. Those principles are that there should be no weakening, fudging, botching or undermining of the Maastricht criteria, and, at the same time, to try to shift the focus of the debate in Europe to jobs and employment. Those principles should determine our approach.

Mr.John D.Taylor: Subject to the detail on quota hopping, it seems that the arrangement that has been reached does not stop further quota hoppers joining the British fleet, does not expedite the removal of existing quota hoppers and, in any case, is temporary up to 2002. Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent suggestion by Mrs. Bonino that in the review of the common fisheries policy in 2002, even the issue of the renationalisation of the fishing industry could be considered? Would the Government consider that possibility?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the remarks of Commissioner Bonino to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but the agreement is not temporary. The revision of the CFP is to take place in 2002, but the agreement holds. In relation to stopping existing and future quota hoppers, the agreement does the most that can possibly be done, which is to give us the ability—or enhance our ability—to impose licence conditions on vessels fishing under our quotas. Obviously, the importance of that is that it discourages further quota hopping and also means that existing quota hoppers are considerably impeded.
In addition, I stress the importance of the Commission agreement to bring forward further enforcement measures. As I understand it, the problem of quota hopping is not merely the fact that people own our quotas but that those who come in from outside and own our quotas take a far bigger catch than they are supposed to, and there are no proper systems of inspection in the ports of nation states at which they land the fish. That is one of the things that we have to tighten.
I in no way pretend that the agreement solves the whole problem—that would be a foolish illusion and it would be wrong to suggest it—but it is a significant step of progress. It is now necessary to discuss with the fishing industry what changes are necessary to our licence conditions and then to try to make sure that we develop a forward strategy for the fishing industry so that it has a viable future and so that there is a genuine prospect of people securing their livelihoods in the long term.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Prime Minister confirm that although he is rightly opposed to a takeover of the WEU by the European Union and deserves to be congratulated by all parts of the House on his success in resisting that project, it does not mean that the Government are opposed to common defence? Indeed, the whole purpose of the WEU is common defence.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point—that is the purpose of the WEU and, indeed, of NATO. It is important that we do not determine one framework within which common defence is placed. My concern about the proposal to integrate the WEU into the European Union is that it suggests that everything goes through the EU. That is not the case. The debate at Amsterdam was not simply between integrationists and non-integrationists, but about the best way to make progress on common defence among countries that have a genuine co-operative interest. We very largely did that. It was not just about protecting our interests, although that was important, but about trying to suggest to the rest of Europe that there is a different way of looking at the matter.

Mr. John Butterfill: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the importance to the British economy of the tourism and leisure industries. He will also be aware that they are, by their very nature, large employers of seasonal and part-time workers. What representations did he make on behalf of those industries to ensure that the application of the social chapter and the employment chapter does not cause them undue damage?

The Prime Minister: In relation to the social chapter, we made it absolutely clear that we do not favour an extension of qualified majority voting in respect of any measures that come up. Therefore, under the unanimity provisions, we can make a judgment as we wish.
In respect of the employment chapter, it is important that hon. Members understand that it specifically ruled out the harmonisation of laws. It is not about more regulation or harmonising the laws of member states but, in a sense, about trying to provoke a debate about the best way forward for economic reform in Europe. Of course the tourism and leisure industries are tremendously important, but they would benefit from an open single market in Europe and also from a prosperous Europe.

Miss Melanie Johnson: What lessons does the Prime Minister draw from the fact that, although Margaret Thatcher said, "No, no, no" to Europe, she did not manage to succeed in getting legal protection for our frontiers?

The Prime Minister: What is important is tat we say, "No" when it is sensible to do so, but that we do not spend

our whole time saying, "No" as a matter of principle to everything that anyone else suggests. That means that we were able to achieve security for our border controls. That is important and I am pleased that we were able to do it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister—or at least his publicity machine—has been claiming victory on the issue of quota hopping, but the Spanish say that no deal has been reached and the Commission says that we are only at the outset of reaching a deal.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that current category A licences already contain the stipulation for a 50 per cent. landing and all that is changing is the enforcement? Can he guarantee that, as a result of the changes he has negotiated, the capacity reductions will fall on the flags of convenience fleet and not on domestic vessels? If he cannot give that guarantee, fishermen around the coastline will say that he may be claiming victory, but has been sold a haddie.

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The latest information is that Spain was threatening to take Britain to the European Court as a result of the agreement, so, with all due respect, I think that he is wrong. We are able to strengthen the licence conditions and it is important that we do so; it is important also that we bring forward enforcement measures, but nobody can pretend that this subject will be easily dealt with or easily solved.
The hon. Gentleman says that we have been claiming some great victory, but we are not claiming victory at all. What we are claiming is that we have made progress. We have made progress, and that progress stands in sharp contrast to what went before. It is all very well for him, but he has no serious proposals of his own as to how to deal with the issue.

Mr.Dale Campbell-Savours: Irrespective of whether the 1999 start date is realistic, what discussions are taking place about the question of the accountability of a central bank to the European Parliament?

The Prime Minister: This was dealt with in the resolution of the Finance Ministers. It is something of which they are aware and it formed part of the discussion between France, Britain and other countries at the meeting of the Finance Ministers. That process of accountability is, of course, important and that discussion will continue, but what is absolutely essential is that nothing that was agreed at Amsterdam in any way changes the basic criteria. As I have said, whether or not those criteria can be met is another matter.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Prime Minister considered exactly what the budgetary implications for the country and the Chancellor would be if the British Government were outvoted through an extension of qualified majority voting in research and development? By the same token, I understand that he has agreed to a massive extension of co-decision. Obviously, that is happy news for colleagues in another place, but can he explain to us today how he intends to guarantee the sovereignty of this House in those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: The European Parliament cannot actually propose anything that the Council has not agreed


to. What I announced in my statement was an enhanced way in which national parliaments, and this Parliament in particular, can study European documents. As for being outvoted through QMV on research and development, the problem is the opposite of that: it is that we will often want measures to be put through by the Commission using QMV—["HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The reason why it is important to have QMV in the area of research is that without it we can be blocked in what we want to do.
Obviously, if a large number of countries are opposed to what Britain is doing, we will not get our way, but the current problem is that, under unanimity, we can be blocked by one country. That is why I say that the sensible approach to QMV is to treat it on a case-by-case basis. Where it is not sensible to extend it, do not extend it; where it is sensible to extend it, do not take an ideological view that QMV in all circumstances is wrong.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that I do not measure success at these summits and common market conferences on the basis of further integration, which I regard as a sort of setback? I hope he will be able to please me as well as all the others who want that sort of advance among those 15 nation states. Will he answer this key question: as the single currency was the big issue among all the others, can he seriously tell me whether the momentum towards a single currency in those few days at Amsterdam was advanced or stalled? Please me.

The Prime Minister: I am habitually trying to please my hon. Friend, as he knows. The short answer is that it is impossible to tell, because in the end it will depend on whether countries meet the criteria. Matters would have been pushed forward in an unhelpful way if the criteria had been changed. We cannot tell what the outcome will be at the moment.
I can say, however, that I believe that the language on employment, jobs and growth was more realistic, and more what I would call people-centred, than most of the language that I have read in previous conclusions.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in Amsterdam he has agreed, under the resolution in annexe II to the presidency conclusions, that we will enter the exchange rate mechanism even if we do not sign up to EMU on 1 January 1999?

The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful visit to Europe and on his negotiations? However, did he have discussions with Chancellor Kohl about the Eurofighter? As thousands of jobs in my constituency and many more thousands in Lancashire depend on that project, I hope that he did.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I know how concerned he is about this matter on behalf of his constituents. I raised that issue with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn a short time ago and I was pleased that he confirmed that he still desires to proceed with the project. Apparently, budget discussions are going on in Germany

at present, but I think it is very important that the project proceeds, for the defence of the country and for jobs and skills.

Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the new UK protocol maintaining the UK's borders applies with the same legal force to the nearly 400 million EU citizens as to those who are not EU citizens, given the new treaty wording to which he has subscribed—that
the free movement of persons is assured"?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the position is that they have to produce their documents in the normal way, so that is something that has happened and will continue to happen.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his success in Amsterdam. I am especially grateful as, for the first time in 10 years, I shall be able to visit member states without having to apologise for my Government's intransigence. May I press the Prime Minister on enlargement and ask him whether there was any optimism on the future negotiations for the acceptance of Cyprus into the European Union?

The Prime Minister: No, that did not form part of the discussions. However, on enlargement, there was not as much progress as there should have been and, without doubt, we should have liked there to have been more, but there is still a considerable will to make progress. Some of the institutional methods of doing that are still open for debate, but the conclusions of the Amsterdam summit were very strong on the principle and issue of enlargement. I have made it clear that when we have the presidency of Europe we shall be making progress on that as one of our priorities. I believe that it is essential that we do so.
In response to the first thing that my hon. Friend said, I should say that I believe that, as a result of having a serious position on Europe, which means standing up for British interests whole-heartedly throughout but being serious, not intransigent, we shall get a better deal.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister briefly mentioned subsidiarity. Does he agree that subsidiarity means decisions being taken not just at European member state level but at levels below that? How is that principle advanced by the new treaty? Will he confirm that the representatives of the small nations and regions of Europe will have an important part to play, following Amsterdam, in important matters such as the future of regional policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do agree. That is one of the very things subsidiarity is supposed to achieve. That is why we are strongly promoting the agreed protocol. It was made clear during discussions on it that subsidiarity means a far stronger role being played below member state level. That of course applies to the nations and regions of Europe—and below that level, too.

Helen Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the treaty now recognises explicitly


the fact that European Union citizenship does not replace national citizenship—something which the previous Government signally failed to secure?

The Prime Minister: That is correct.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The written conclusions to the summit contain pages of Euro-waffle about the need to create more jobs, including some damaging provisions, but they also press for flexible labour markets and lower business costs. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this new-found attachment to market forces with the fact that, at the same summit and in the same treaty, he is signing up this country to the provisions of the social chapter which, by definition, interfere in labour markets and raise business costs?

The Prime Minister: For the first time in the written conclusions to a summit, we got in straight terms the importance of concentrating on the very things on which we wish to concentrate: employment, growth, competitiveness, small businesses, and education and skills instead of old-style regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman says that lower business costs and flexibility are inconsistent with the social chapter. Basic minimum standards at work are not, in our view, inconsistent with economic prosperity. The social chapter, in relation to consultations with workers at a Europe-wide level and parental leave, is perfectly sensible.
I return to the point that I made earlier in response to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major): as a result of being in the social chapter, we can play our part in shaping any legislation that may come from it. As a result of the Conservative Government's opt-out, the social chapter directive on consultation of workers on a Europe-wide basis came into force. We played no part in shaping it and had no influence over it, yet British companies ended up having to apply it. Half the British companies to which it would have applied, had we been part of the social chapter, ended up having to apply it voluntarily—but with no influence on the process. That is not a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on two counts. First, he has given us a clear and concise report, in stark contrast to the muddle and acrimony of the former Government. Secondly, he has nailed the lie that he is a poor negotiator—a lie put about by Conservatives during the election campaign. We now know that it was the previous Prime Minister, not my right hon. Friend, who was the poor negotiator.
On enlargement, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that our inner cities are suffering from unemployment and a lack of infrastructural development because of the previous Government? But enlargement will mean resources being drained away from the inner cities and poorer regions of Britain to the new countries. Can he assure us that he will consider that seriously in future negotiations?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to get enlargement on the correct terms. The purpose of enlarging is to draw into the EU the countries of eastern Europe. That is of mutual benefit—it is not simply a one-way process—because we will create a larger trading area. Enlargement should also be used as a lever to reform the common agricultural policy, which is currently a scandal.
It is because we understand the problems of unemployment in the inner cities that we are committed to taking action on it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: To return to the issue of quota hopping, can the Prime Minister not grasp that west country fishermen do not want tinkering with the licence? They want quota hopping stopped. Is it not a fact that, as a result of the Prime Minister's inactivity at Amsterdam, we will not get rid of a single quota hopper, and British fishermen will not be able to catch one extra fish? West country fishermen were looking to the Prime Minister for an exercise in statesmanship. They found, instead, that he sold their industry down the river.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The purpose of the agreement that we got is precisely to affect the activities of existing quota hoppers and of future quota hoppers as well. The key to that is the ability to change the licence conditions under which vessels operate.
The treaty protocol of the previous Government, which had not the slightest prospect of ever being negotiated, did not deal with the problem of existing quota hopping.
It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to get up and pretend to people that there is some easy answer in relation to quota hopping. There is not, and he should know that. People may get up and say, "I could have gone to Amsterdam and got the whole thing stopped overnight", but that is simply untrue. [Interruption.] It is said that it did not matter. That is unfair and wrong. It did matter, which is why it was a big part of our negotiation. It is most cruel and most deceiving to tell people that there is a simple solution, when one knows perfectly well that there is not.

Common Fisheries Policy

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a more detailed statement about the common fisheries policy and the agreement that the Prime Minister has concluded with the President of the Commission.
Fishing has an important place and a long tradition as an industry in this country. The Government intend to work with the industry to ensure its continued and sustainable future. That means devising a strategy to meet the challenges of low fish stocks and over-capacity.
We have inherited a series of profound problems as a result of the previous Administration's handling of fisheries policy, which lacked any sign of direction or support. One of their excuses for failure has been the problem of vessels owned largely by foreign interests which are United Kingdom-flagged and use UK fishing quotas. They give little or no economic benefit from their activities to our own fishing communities, because they are largely operated and crewed from other member states and land a high proportion of their catches outside the UK.
That is a long-standing problem, which the previous Administration allowed to develop and failed to solve. They could have addressed it in 1982, when the common fisheries policy was being negotiated, but they did not. Having failed to act then, they should have addressed the problem when enlargement to bring in Spain and Portugal was agreed in 1985.
However, the previous Government allowed matters to deteriorate and eventually last year proposed a draft treaty protocol which, it became clear, stood no realistic chance of success because they failed to secure support for it—nor is it clear that it would have dealt effectively with the existing situation. Not a single member state was willing to support the concept of a protocol proposed by the previous Administration.
In the weeks since 2 May, we have taken the matter up with the Commission and other member states. Our discussions included my talks with Commissioner Bonino on 20 May, and concluded in Amsterdam this week. The Government's efforts have now secured a constructive outcome.
In an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, the Commission has set out measures that we can take, requiring UK-flagged vessels to demonstrate that their activities contribute substantial economic benefits for populations dependent on fishing and related industries in the UK.
The United Kingdom now has a basis for imposing on fishing vessels requirements that they comply with provisions to land a specified proportion of their catch—we envisage 50 per cent.—into UK ports, or have a majority of their crew resident in the UK, or commence a majority of their fishing trips from UK ports, or comply with a combination of measures. At present, many of these foreign-owned vessels contribute little or nothing to the economy of our fishing communities. The new rules would change this and ensure that benefits flow to our fishing communities and processors, by requiring the vessels to demonstrate that substantial economic benefits are secured.
We intend to introduce new licence rules to implement these measures as swiftly as possible. We shall be consulting the whole fishing industry about the new rules before asking the Commission to give a formal opinion on them. In this way, we can ensure that our rules are effective, sensitive to the interests of all affected by them, and consistent with the various legal requirements.
Without effective enforcement, all our efforts to ensure the conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. That is why the importance of enforcement has been the second major issue that we have pursued with the Commission. We have insisted that more must be done to ensure effective and consistent application of the rules. It is essential that, wherever fishermen land their catches, they must be subject to equivalent measures. The Commission is committed now to examining improvements in enforcement, including strengthened obligations on member states. It will also look at the role of Commission inspectors. They will report later this year to the Council with proposals as necessary.
Meanwhile, we are taking steps ourselves to tighten various aspects of enforcement. I will announce these in a separate written statement to the House. They concern action to assist the Marine Safety Agency in ensuring that vessels and their crews are properly certified to comply with safety requirements and, in addition, steps to prevent evading quota rules and undermining conservation objectives by discarding fish already stowed on board.
We have also obtained from the Commission assurances about the involvement of local fishing interests in the decision-making process, and about the review of and prospects for the common fisheries policy after 2002. The Commission has confirmed that key elements of the common fisheries policy are widely valued and that it considers it unlikely that the fundamental principle of relative stability would be called into question or that there would be a desire to modify present restrictions on access to waters inside member states' 12-mile limits. We will be building on those assurances during future discussions about the common fisheries policy.
In total, I consider that this is a valuable outcome. We have secured some very positive results concerning the application of economic links, as well as making constructive progress on a range of wider issues, all of which are central to the Government's approach to the common fisheries policy. Because we have agreed a way forward with the Commission, we are in a much better position to avoid legal challenge to the measures we adopt. Measures proposed by the Commission to the Fisheries Council would be agreed by qualified majority voting.
There is much more to be done to put our fishing industry on a sound footing for the future. I now propose to take this action forward urgently. With my colleagues responsible for fisheries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am inviting the leaders of the UK fishing industry to participate in high-level talks on the industry's future. The highest priority is to decide the way in which we implement rules to require the economic link. However, there is a much wider agenda. We must address the problems of enforcement, low stocks and over-capacity, as well as looking at other possibilities for change in quota and licence management and the scope for more regional involvement.
The Government want to develop a realistic strategy to create a viable future for our fishing industry in the years ahead. These talks will start that process. We shall ensure that the industry is directly and fully involved.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and wish him well.
Outside the House, the Prime Minister's press secretary is claiming the proposals as a victory. It was interesting to note that not even the Prime Minister had the gall to claim them as such; rather, he spoke simply about making progress.
How can an exchange of letters between the United Kingdom Government and the Commission be binding on anyone else? What possible status in Community law does such an exchange of letters have? What is even more curious is that the Minister said that he would be consulting the fishing industry about the new rules before asking the Commission for a formal opinion on them. What is in those letters? [Interruption.] Perhaps they can be put in the Library so that we can all read them.
How can such measures be binding on the Spanish and others? Given the Factortame judgment, any such proposals will almost certainly be struck down by the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] It is little wonder that the Spanish Government have poured scorn on those proposals, as meaningless and devoid of effect. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, but I suspect that he will find it difficult to convince fishermen in Scotland that the outcome is anything other than a sell-out.
During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister agreed, as did everyone else, that quota hoppers could be effectively dealt with only by treaty changes. Indeed, the Prime Minister went further than that during the campaign, when he said at the time of the Luxembourg Fisheries Council that a Labour Government "would not rule out"—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): indicated dissent.

Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government "would not rule out"—I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to look up that quote—the Government using their vetoss at the Amsterdam summit to ensure that quota hoppers were dealt with through treaty changes.
In reality, the Government have made no attempt whatever to get treaty changes. That is a complete sell-out of the United Kingdom's fishing industry. The current proposals will not get rid of a single existing quota hopper; nor will they prevent the transfer of United Kingdom fishing licences to quota hoppers in the future. If there are to be national fishing quotas, it must be right that United Kingdom fish should be for United Kingdom fishermen. The agreement, however, does not give our fishermen one extra fish.
It is also clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government have failed to defend the concept of relative stability. They have also failed to make it clear that our 12-mile fishing limits are non-negotiable.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the fishermen of the United Kingdom will be appalled and angry at how they have been so comprehensively sold out and betrayed by the Government? This is a black day for those fishermen—a day when their interests were thrown away for a meaningless piece of paper and a cheap soundbite.

Dr. Cunningham: That long, boring and rather convoluted response barely merits a reply, but I shall deal with at least some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that some progress is not as good as no progress. For 18 years, the Conservative Government made no progress, but, as the Prime Minister has said, we have made some reasonable progress.
Let us consider the hon. Gentleman's repeated reference to a change to the protocol. Not a single member state was willing to vote for the protocol. In any event, it would not have dealt with the existing problem. That is the reality. The hon. Gentleman kept on referring to the protocol, but it was a complete fraud committed on Britishss fishermen. He knows that to be the case.
The Commission letter will be binding. The hon. Gentleman asked why we are consulting. We are consulting our own fishermen exactly because the new rules will apply to them, too. In case the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, although I am sure that he is, plenty of our vessels land their catch at foreign ports. That is the reality, so we must consult our fishermen before changing the rules because they will be directly affected by them.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to see the exchange of letters. They have been in the Library since about noon today. They have been available.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We had to ask the Library for a photocopy just before 3 o'clock.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady intervenes from a sedentary position, and I should like to put it on the record that I sent in advance a copy of my statement to the leader or the spokesperson of every party in the House. Every party had a copy of my statement in advance of my making it. I have nothing to hide in making my statement.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) mentioned the consequences of the Factortame case. That case results from a bungled attempt by the previous Government to do something about these matters. The Government are now facing, as a result of the previous Government's bungling, 97 claims for compensation in the courts. That is the result of the previous Administration's incompetence.
The changes that I am announcing will affect both existing and future sales of British quota. The hon. Member for Banbury refers to the problem as if it is in some way the responsibility of the Spanish or Netherlands fishermen. What actually happened? Given the abysmal economic circumstances of the UK fishing industries, fishermen were forced out of business, and they willingly sold their quota to foreign owners. All that happened in three separate phases under the previous Government's administration. If we are apportioning blame today, it lies fairly and squarely with the previous Government's failed fisheries policies.
There may be an attempt to challenge the new rules. I would not be surprised if that were to happen—I do not suppose that anybody in the House would be surprised. The fact, however, that we shall agree the detailed changes and implementation with the Commission gives us added strength in our ability to resist any such challenge.
The hon. Member for Banbury finished with a sort of rhetorical flourish in saying that what I have announced would not be welcome to British fishermen and fishing communities. The reality is that we have made some significant progress in seven weeks in office, while the Conservative Government made none in 17 years.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we entered the Community without any agreement on fishing? The Conservative party, when in government under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), did nothing to defend the distant water, middle water fleet or inshore fleets. When some of us tried to move the Adjournment of the House on that issue—that we should not go into the Community until the matter was settled—we were rebuffed ssby the Government of the day. That should be made extremely clear.
Since then, every Government have been seeking to improve the position of our fishermen. However, they have been playing from a hand that has held very few trumps, because the situation was lost at the outset. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on such progress as has been made so far. It is showing an ability to try to negotiate with the Commission and eventually with our Community partners to try to bring at least some hope for the British fishing fleet.
As for the letters with the Commission, surely it would not be right to say that they are legally binding on it. They are merely a statement of intent on the part of the Commission, and any regulations that are made will be subject always to challenge in the European Court. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that, in negotiating the new regulations, he bears in mind our fishing fleet and the fleets of other countries that also land in ports other than their home ports, so that we can get as many as possible of our partners in the Community behind us in pushing forward a new policy?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that the problem stems from the complete neglect of the UK fishing industry at the time of our entry into the European Community in 1972, and has flowed on from there. It is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury is mumbling on from the other side of the Dispatch Box. He had every opportunity to make some progress—his party and he himself—and they failed to do so.
First, the Commission is the guardian of the treaty and of European Union law. It will be in the interests of the Commission, and in this instance the President of the Commission, to ensure that the final details of licences that we shall discuss with our fishermen will be enforced.
Secondly, my hon. Friend's constituents—he represents one of the most important fishing communities anywhere in the UK—can be assured that we shall properly consult them about these changes and about the policy

developments that we want to make about the future of their industry, so that they can have a secure and sustainable future.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I acknowledge that the Minister's inheritance in fisheries policy, as in quite a number of other policy areas within his remit, is a sorry one—a fact eloquently underscored by the response by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Conservative party spokesman, to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. None the less, will the Minister acknowledge that, perhaps inescapably at this stage in the discussions, his statement almost raises more questions than it can provide immediate answers?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that quota hopping, devilish though it is, is a symptom of the deeper problem—the common fisheries policy itself? Will he therefore commit himself and the new Administration to a fundamental reform of the CFP, with the specific aim, based on the intention behind the discussions that he has outlined, of establishing proper regional management of fisheries, which must be more sane and sensible for the long-term viability of the domestic sector of our industry?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his questions, which made far more sense and was far more constructive and realistic than what was said on behalf of the Conservative party. He is right to say that the inheritance is a sorry one, and I am pleased that he recognises that fact. He is also right to say that there are many more questions to which we must find answers. I share his opinion that the sale of United Kingdom quota was a symptom and a consequence of the neglect of our fishing industry. It is not the root of the problem, but we still want to act as quickly as we can in trying to mitigate it.
I share the hon. Gentleman's medium-term objective of reform of the common fisheries policy. We have already had preliminary discussions on that subject, as the Prime Minister and I have both confirmed. Better involvement of fishermen and fishing communities in the future of their industry is one of our primary objectives. I share the hon. Gentleman's attachment to that idea as part of the way forward. Regional management of our fisheries makes sense not only from the point of view of the people in those communities but from that of Ministers, too.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I appeal to all hon. Members, as well as to the Minister, for short questions and short answers. We have not yet even reached the Orders of the Day, and I have the rest of the business of the House to safeguard.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his succession to this bed not of nails but of dogfish and cattle teeth. I congratulate him, too, on doing more about the quota hoppers in his short period in office than the previous Government did in 18 years. None the less, the industry is very dissatisfied with a settlement that will make life more difficult for Grimsby vessels, many of which land overseas to a considerable extent, yet which does not close the door to future quota hoppers.
Quota hoppers still constitute 26 per cent. of the British fleet, so, when the time comes to assess our targets for effort limitation, an almost impossible cut in the British fleet will be required if we are to gain access to the European funding that the industry desperately needs, and that competing industries have already had.
Finally, because there is a ridiculously mixed system of capacity and effort limitation under multi-annual guidance programme IV, can the Minister tell us that he does not envisage any kind of limitation on days at sea, such as the previous Government failed to impose on the industry?

Dr. Cunningham: I can assure my hon. Friend that Grimsby fishermen and others sailing from that port will have every opportunity to add to his already formidable representation of their interests. As for conservation and the requirement for reduced effort, when the measures emerge they will affect all licence holders, not only those based in the United Kingdom. I cannot lawfully impose all such reductions on overseas vessels holding United Kingdom licences. I simply would not be allowed to do so
With regard to MAGP IV, we have discovered that part of this miserable legacy is the previous Administration's failure to meet many of the requirements of MAGP III, so we have inherited a huge backlog of work on conservation measures.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I have known him for tens of years and I have never seen him as a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but none the less I wish him well, because, unless he does well, British agriculture and British fishing will suffer.
Will he overcome my concern that there is nothing in the statement about many of the most interesting and smaller communities of inshore fishermen, such as Seaton, Beer and Sidmouth in my constituency? Many small communities rely on the work of their men. No consideration has been given to many of their concerns—which I do not need to outline, because the right hon. Gentleman will know about them—either in the statement or in the negotiations.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kindness. I never saw myself as Minister of Agriculture, either, but I am enjoying the responsibilities, and am looking forward to playing an important role in my right hon. friend's Government.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have given no consideration to small fishing communities. I am pleased to tell him that that is not true. I represent a small fishing community in the port of Whitehaven, so I am keenly aware of the points that he legitimately makes on behalf of smaller fishing communities. When we review the common fisheries policy, it will be important to such smaller communities that we seek some stability, especially the maintenance of the control of the 12-mile limit. We want to make it clear that many of the changes that we shall be required to implement under MAGP III and MAGP IV will not affect the smallest vessels.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: In his further talks with the Commission, will my right hon. Friend

build on the Commission's interest, which I was pleased to hear him mention, in regional involvement in decision making? That would be welcome in the south-west, where conservation measures have often been inappropriate to the mixed fish stocks there, and would play an important part in the development of solutions for conservation.

Dr. Cunningham: I accept my hon. Friend's point. As I have said several times already, we intend to make significant changes to improve regional involvement of fishing communities in the policy development that is so important to their health and well-being.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister confirm, perhaps for the benefit of the Prime Minister, that category A fishing licences—I have one here—already contain the stipulation that 50 per cent. of catches should be landed at domestic ports? If it is a question of implementation, how is transhipment to be dealt with? For example, are fish that are landed at the port of Buckie in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and taken straight to Spain counted as part of a domestically landed catch?
Am I right in believing that more than 90 per cent. of the crews of flags-of-convenience vessels do not have Marine Safety Agency certification? If so, are they not fishing illegally, and should not the same restraint be used on them as would be used on the crews of boats in my constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, or on any domestic fishermen who did not have MSA certification?

Dr. Cunningham: I can confirm that, under existing licence rules, vessels that land less than 50 per cent. of a catch in the United Kingdom are required to visit UK ports at least four times in six months for inspection. That is a weak control. We propose a more effective control, which will give us more economic benefit than the existing provisions. The hon. Gentleman is partly, but not wholly, right.
As for enforcement, we should be candid with ourselves and recognise that enforcement measures have not been as effective as they might have been in respect of our own, let alone overseas, fishing effort. That is why the second most important part of what I have been saying, and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying, is that we must toughen up enforcement, and have uniform application of enforcement throughout the European Union. I do not want rules to apply to United Kingdom fishermen and their vessels that are not universally applied. We will continue to press that.
A number of vessels have been heavily fined for breaking the existing regulations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be even tougher in the future in enforcing the rules.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend is right to condemn previous Tory Administrations. It was the Tory Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who sold the pass, and others have continued down that sad road. I speak as a member of a fisherman's family.
Apart from the serious problem of quota hopping, there is another problem that I consider equally serious: industrial fishing. Will my right hon. Friend do something


about the need to reduce, if not abolish, that wasteful practice? In Scottish waters, the Wee Bankie and the Buckie Man's bank should be protected from the onslaught on the sand eel by Danish fishermen.

Dr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend says, the problem of the sale of the UK quota—which is what we are discussing—is one of a number of important and difficult problems. It is not—I am candid about this—a problem which will be easily or quickly resolved. People have legally acquired the quota: these were willing sales and legal purchases. No protocol on earth would have obliged those people to give up what they had legally acquired.
As for conservation and closing some areas, the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), is looking into that in some detail. We would not flinch from taking strong action if we concluded that that was the best way in which to improve conservation and prevent the fishing out of our important fisheries. Most sensible fishermen recognise that, if there are no fish, there is no future for them and their industry.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I represent the second largest fishing community in England and Wales, in Brixham. I am anxious to tell the Brixham fishermen exactly what the statement means for them.
Can the Minister tell us whether one extra fish will come to British fishermen as a result of the deal? If no more fish will come to them, will one boat under a flag of convenience come to the British fishing fleet? If that does not happen, will the British quota come back to Britain-even one fish of it?
If that does not happen, what will become of 50 per cent. of the fish that are landed on the Brixham dock? Will they have to be driven all the way to Holland and Spain—which would pollute the environment, and make the fish that arrived three or four days later not fresh for the people of those countries? What is the advantage of the deal to the Brixham community?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was to the Brixham community.
The advantage is that, for the first time, we have made some progress. We are not making over-the-top claims for progress on resolving the problem of the sale of the UK quota, which took place when the hon. Gentleman was sitting on the Government Benches behind his right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers. I did not hear him say too much about it while it was going on.
We are making some progress, which means that more fish will be landed in Britain. The protocol to which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave so much credence would have had no impact on the existing situation—even if it had obtained some support from other member states, which it signally failed to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help Brixham fishermen and their communities—and I understand that he would naturally want to do that—he can tell them that this is the first significant step towards regaining some economic benefit for them, following what has happened to fishing in Britain over the past 17 years.

Miss Anne Begg: Inevitably, part of the problem lies with British fishermen who have sold

their quotas. Much of the solution to the problem of fish conservation lies in the hands of fishermen. What are the Minister's plans for seeking talks or involving fishermen in an attempt to find solutions to the problems that face their industry?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. In the context of quota selling, it must be said that the economic circumstances in fishing communities and the neglect of the fishing industry drove many fishermen, in some desperation, to sell their quotas, at a time when the previous Government were taking no notice of their problems—indeed, in some respects they were making them worse.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall involve fishermen and fishing communities from the outset in the development of new policies to produce a sustainable industry. It would be absurd for the United Kingdom, as a maritime nation, not to have a sustainable fishing industry. We are determined to secure that, and that means taking some tough decisions on conservation, which is all the more reason for us wanting to engage fishermen from the outset. That is why we shall call them to a meeting as soon as possible.

Mr. William Thompson: Can the Minister say how long he expects the consultation process to go on? Can he guarantee that, when the proposals go to the Commission, they will be accepted? Will we get to the position where we are with beef, so that amendments will be sought, time will go on and on, and little advantage will be gained?

Dr. Cunningham: The consultation process will take, I hope, a relatively short period in respect of the licence conditions that I have mentioned. Of course, engaging in talks with fishermen about the future of the industry so that it is viable and sustainable will take considerably longer.
The hon. Gentleman asks about proposals going to the Commission. My right hon. Friend has secured in the letter from the President of the Commission a commitment to those licence changes. I do not think that there is a prospect of the President of the Commission wanting to see that to which he has committed himself in that letter frittered away.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement. Only last week, I made my maiden speech and urged the Government to include quota hopping in their discussions on Europe. Therefore, I am pleased that today we have the proofs of those discussions. My constituents will be pleased that fishing is at long last at the forefront of Government policy. For many years, it was ignored or pushed behind other issues that were seen as more important. I represent an area that was once—

Hon. Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with this. The hon. Lady is a new Member. Let us have a little tolerance. Time is passing, and I asked for quick questions and quick


answers, but I have not had any response yet. I should like to have it now. I ask the hon. Lady to put a question to the Minister.

Mrs. Humble: I do apologise.

Madam Speaker: We all know her constituency very well, and we like it.

Mrs. Humble: The question that I shall be asked when I go back and talk to Fleetwood fishermen will be about the nature of the consultation. They will be pleased that there is to be consultation, but they and I would like more details about its nature and its timetable.

Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) in the House. For that matter, I am delighted to see all my hon. Friends who represent fishing ports. It shows that all the bluff and bluster by the Conservative Government did not save the necks of many Conservative Members who represented fishing communities.
I shall write to my hon. Friend about the consultation process, and give her the assurance that her constituents in Fleetwood will have every opportunity to put their views to me and my colleagues.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Although I think that the House supports the Minister in his admirable objective of trying to safeguard coastal and fishing communities and to conserve our fishing stocks and the integrity of our economic zone, is not, in truth, the real trouble that fishing is a European Union competence—that is where the trouble lies? If the Minister were accountable and responsible within our domain, we would have a more effective fishing and conservation policy. In their discussions, will he and his right hon. Friends consider how and why—in what way—a European Union competence over our fisheries and our economic zone is in our national interest?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is really asking whether it is in Britain's interest to be a member of the EU. So long as we are a member of the EU, we are bound by the provisions of the common fisheries policy and, whether he likes it or not—whether I like it or not—we have to work within the confines of that policy. It is all the more important, therefore, that we do have a constructive, positive approach to EU membership. It is no accident that the new Labour Government's change in approach to dealing with our problems in the EU is showing some results, where none flowed from the belligerent, loud-mouthed and aggressive attitude of the previous Administration.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: On behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby, it is important that we have broken the deadlock on this whole issue. The reason I am here to represent those communities is that the Conservative party failed to deliver the consultation that it long promised, and its many other promises to fishing communities in Scarborough and Whitby. I should like know in some

detail what my right hon. Friend the Minister proposes to do about regional initiatives to ensure that we conserve fishing stock, and about taking a more global approach to ensure that we achieve regional solutions to regional problems. After all, fish do not know any boundaries.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend has the distinction of representing two fishing ports; most of us are lucky to represent one. I cannot give him the detail now about how we intend to develop our thinking on regional involvement. It is exactly for that reason that we want to begin talks with fishing community representatives. There would be little point in having talks if I were going there simply to impose on them a blueprint that we had already decided; but, again, I assure him that his constituents in Scarborough and Whitby will have every opportunity to be involved in those discussions.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: What will happen if the Minister imposes regulations in the licence in accordance with the letters that have been exchanged, the case is then taken to the European Court, and his new licences are found to be in contravention of the treaty in the judgment of the European Court? What steps will the Government then take?

Dr. Cunningham: All that is hypothetical.

Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will mean genuine progress in the fishing industry. I particularly welcome his announcement that he intends to hold a fishing summit. In Aberdeen, we recognise that the fishing industry is made up not just of the fish-catching side. Many thousands of jobs depend, for example, on the fish processing and merchant side of the business, and of course there is the consumer angle. Therefore, when he pulls together his summit, will he take those interests into consideration, and include them in his discussions?

Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister's statement referred to a number of requirements: 50 per cent. of catch should be landed at UK ports, a majority of the crew should be resident in the UK and a majority of fishing trips should start from the UK port. They are all linked by the word "or". Is it one out of three or two out of three, or is that the sort of matter that he will be discussing?

Dr. Cunningham: It can be a combination of all three in part. That is a matter for discussion in terms of the conditions that we shall apply to the licences.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is not the truly remarkable thing about quota hopping the fact that, of all the European countries, the only fleet that has suffered significantly is Britain's? When I ask fishermen in Lowestoft, "Why don't you hop on another country's quota," they say, "You just try. You can't do that."
Therefore, is not the real significance of today's announcement the fact that, for the first time, we have a Government who have achieved something that will not only discourage future quota hopping by bringing in the


economic link, but deal with the existing situation? Is it not a fact that more fish will therefore be landed in British ports, which is good for British fish markets, and more British fishermen will be able to be employed on the boats, where previously they were denied access?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to see him here, as I played a small part in his campaign. He is absolutely right, of course. The reason why our fishermen cannot buy quota in other countries is simply that it is not for sale: other Governments have ensured that the economic circumstances of their fishing industries make it profitable and secure for their fishermen to hold on to their quota. The previous Government failed to do that in this country, which led to the sale of quota and caused the problem in the first place.

Mr. Andrew George: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the announcement is more of a sprat than a prize fish. I know that, throughout the fishing industry, there will be deep disappointment that it does not deal with the fundamental issues. However, I feel sure that he also shares my concern that the fishing industry and fishermen in particular have, over the past year, perhaps been used by certain people of a more xenophobic—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully, but I have not yet heard a question.

Mr. George: The question is coming.

Madam Speaker: Good. Let us have it now.

Mr. George: In the measures proposed here, there are difficulties, in that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, if it is a question of either/or in relation to the crewing requirement—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat for a moment. I have asked for a question. I am very tolerant with new Members, as I was with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I explained to the House that this is Question Time, and questions must be put to the Minister. I am now waiting for the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. George: Given the fact that there are difficulties, does the Minister agree that, under the crewing arrangements, it is possible for the crew of quota hoppers simply to use postal addresses in the United Kingdom? It is not possible to impose nationality criteria in relation to crewing arrangements.

Dr. Cunningham: In the part of the world that I was born and grew up in, we were told that, when the boat comes in, little fish are sweet, so I agree that this is by no means the end of the problems faced by the fishing industry and our fishing communities. This is the beginning of a strategy to tackle those deep-seated and long-established problems. The conditions that we shall apply to the licences will meet one of those criteria or a combination of one or more of them, so long as we are satisfied that the resulting economic benefit to the communities concerned is real and can be sustained.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Given the fact that we got into this mess under the Tories in the first

place because they allowed free trade in licences and quotas, will the Minister consider reviewing the whole system of selling quotas and licences to the highest bidder as part of his review of local and regional fisheries management?

Dr. Cunningham: In a single market, I cannot stop people willingly and lawfully selling something that is theirs; that is the reality. We want to achieve circumstances in our fishing communities and fishing industries that make it attractive not to sell quota, but to retain it in those communities because they will obtain significant economic benefit from it.
The economic conditions that prevailed in the communities led to the sale of quota. We hope that, through the changes we shall make and through the development of a strategy for our fishing industries, we will minimize—I will not say eliminate—the sale of quota.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) correct to suggest that the key to the problem is the clash between the concept of having quotas and the free market in Europe, which causes a problem with the common fisheries policy?
I want to press the Minister on the legality of what he has agreed. Is not the reality that the Spaniards are pleased because they know that there is no legal binding framework that is justiciable in front of the European Court of Justice? What does he plan to do to rectify that?

Dr. Cunningham: Depending on what newspaper one reads or what broadcast one listens to, our Spanish colleagues are either pleased or hopping mad. Both reports cannot be true. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has concluded sensible, practical steps forward to deal with the problems. Those steps should be welcomed for what they are—reasonable progress in the circumstances. They give us an opportunity to build upon that progress. I want fishing communities and fishermen throughout the United Kingdom to play a part, with my ministerial colleagues and myself, in building on those important first steps.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister rightly said that enforcement is the key. My concern is that, until recently, there were no inspectors in Spain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made a key point: until we have an agreement that is part of the treaty—I understand that this agreement is not—it simply cannot stand up in the European Court of Justice. As my hon. Friend said, our fishermen do not have justiciable rights to rely on before the European Court or, indeed, any court in this country.

Dr. Cunningham: What the hon. Lady says is not true. The requirement to land 50 per cent. of catch already applies in Denmark. That has not been challenged in the European Court. I cannot rule out legal challenges, but I am confident that we can develop licence conditions—and get the agreement and support of the Commission—that we can sustain. That is our objective. The agreement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Amsterdam will give us the opportunity to secure that

BILLS PRESENTED

WILD MAMMALS (HUNTING WITH DOGS)

Mr. Michael Foster, supported by Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Simon Hughes, Angela Smith, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Ian Cawsey, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being pursued, killed or injured by the use of dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 7].

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT)

Dr. Julian Lewis, supported by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. kin Duncan Smith, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. John Bercow, presented a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide greater access to hospital accommodation for mentally ill people; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 8].

REFERENDUM (ENGLISH PARLIAMENT)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman, supported by Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Hayes and Mr. Peter Luff, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in England on the establishment and tax-varying powers of an English Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 9].

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON)

Sir George Young, supported by Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Alan Clark, Ms Margaret Hodge, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Clive Soley and Dr. Jenny Tonge, presented a Bill to provide for the licensing and regulation of private hire vehicles, and drivers and operators of such vehicles, within the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 10].

ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION (UNITED KINGDOM TARGETS)

Mr. Cynog Dafis, supported by Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Jim Cousins, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Stephen Pound and Mr. Andrew Robathan, presented a Bill to make further provision for road traffic reduction targets; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 11].

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr. John Burnett, supported by Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Ms Julia Drown, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Ms Joan Walley

and Mr. Tim Yeo, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy efficiency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN

Mr. Chris Pond, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Llin Golding, Ms Margaret Hodge, Miss Oona King, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Angela Smith and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, presented a Bill to make further provision for the protection of persons in employment under the upper limit of school age, by restricting hours of employment, especially on Sundays, and by other means: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 13].

COLD WEATHER PAYMENTS (WIND CHILL FACTOR)

Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Audrey Wise, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Jamie Cann, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to provide that wind chill factor is taken into account in the calculation of cold weather payments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 14].

EMPLOYMENT (AGE DISCRIMINATION IN ADVERTISEMENTS)

Ms Linda Perham, supported by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Roger Berry, Ms Yvette Cooper, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Angela Smith, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Quentin Davies, presented a Bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in the advertising of employment vacancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 15].

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Mr. Richard Shepherd, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Ross Cranston, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. John Healey, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Don Touhig and Dr. Tony Wright, presented a Bill to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 16].

BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS

Mr. Mike Hall, supported by Mr. Nick Ainger, Ms Helen Southworth, Mr. Tim Loughton, Angela Smith, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Helen Jones, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. John Heppell, presented a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the breeding and sale of dogs; to regulate the welfare of dogs kept in breeding establishments; to extend powers of inspection; to establish records of dogs kept at such establishments;


and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 17].

DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Roger Berry, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Robin Corbett, Valerie Davey, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Tom Levitt, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to establish a Disability Rights Commission to make recommendations on legislation to achieve comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 18].

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PROTECTION OF TITLE)

Mr. Michael Trend, supported by Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Mrs. Gisela Stuart, presented a Bill to control the use of the title "Chamber of Commerce" and related titles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 19].

COMMUNITY CARE (RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Marsha Singh, supported by Mr. Andrew King, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Bob Laxton, Ms Kali Mountford, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. David Borrow, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. John Austin and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to restrict the amount of a person' s capital which may be taken into account by a local authority in determining whether he should be provided with residential accommodation that would be, or would be treated as, provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 20].

LOCAL AUTHORITY TENDERS

Miss Oona King, supported by Mr. Chris Pond, Mrs. Ann Keen, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Martin Bell, Mrs. Diana Organ, Ms Caroline Flint and Mr. David Lock, presented a Bill to amend the law in respect of non-commercial matters to which local authorities may have regard in awarding contracts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 21].

WASTE PREVENTION

Mr. Piers Merchant, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Angela Smith, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Cynog Dafis, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to minimise the generation of waste in their areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 22].

PESTICIDES

Mr. Ben Bradshaw, supported by Ms Candy Atherton, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Fiona Mactaggart, Miss Oona King, Mrs. Gisela Stuart, Ms, Tessa Kingham, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to amend the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 in respect of the power to make regulations concerning pesticides and in respect of the enforcement of provisions relating to the control of pesticides: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 23].

ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING)

Mr. Clive Efford, supported by Mr. John Austin, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Clive Soley, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Alan Simpson, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy conservation related to housing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 24].

FIREWORKS

Mrs. Linda Gilroy, supported by Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Patrick Hall, Ms Barbara Follett, Mr. Andy Love, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Angela Smith, Ms Kali Mountford, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to make further provision about fireworks and other explosives: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 25].

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BEER AND CIDER)

Mr. Dennis Turner, supported by Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Robin Corbett, presented a Bill to amend the law of weights and measures in relation to measures of beer and cider; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 26].

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16 June.]

[MR. MICHAEL LORD In the Chair]

Clause 1

PROHIBITION OF SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS

Question proposed [16 June], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief, Mr. Lord. As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted on Monday, the Bill is profoundly bad legislation. It is being introduced for all the wrong reasons. It is petty minded, it is mean and it will not do what it is intended to do, which is to protect the public.
Clause 1 relates in particular to the calibre of pistol that the Bill will exclude from use. The idea propounded by the Home Secretary is that a .22 pistol, especially the single-shot pistol that we are discussing today, is as dangerous as any other weapon. Anyone with any knowledge of firearms knows that a .22 pistol—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not bother to come back to the Chamber for the remainder of the debate on Monday, but he should remember that we are dealing with clause stand part, which does not deal only with single-shot pistols.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is kind to remind me of that, but I knew it already. However, the amendment and the clause deal with .22 pistols, including single-shot pistols.

Mr. Michael: We are not dealing with the amendment.

Mr. Robathan: We are dealing with .22 pistols, including single-shot pistols. The hon. Gentleman, through lack of knowledge and through ignorance, may find it difficult to understand what we are talking about, which is .22 pistols used for target shooting. If they are banned, that will destroy target shooting.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not understand. I remind him that we dealt with the amendment relating to single-shot pistols on Monday. The whole clause is before us now. It deals with the generality of .22 pistols and extends the bounds to all .22 pistols. That is the point of what we are debating now.

Mr. Robathan: The Minister is very kind to inform me of that, but as I have explained to him—perhaps he is being a little obtuse today—that includes single-shot pistols. The idea that a .22 pistol is equally as lethal as other pistols is not correct. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will confirm whether Mr. Rabin was killed

with a .22 pistol. I believe that he was, but the point is that a bullet from a .22 pistol does not carry as far as one from other weapons and you have to get close to someone to kill them. The idea that Mr. Hamilton could have gone round and shot everybody in the head close at hand is absurd, because he would not have had the chance.
My point is whether clause 1 will protect the public. Which weapons are more dangerous than .22 pistols? One could think of pitchforks in "Dad's Army" and many other things. The .22 pistols are not likely to be the chosen weapon of lethality by mental cases such as Mr. Hamilton.
I would like the Minister to answer one further question, which was put by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on Monday. Sadly, he cannot be here today. He asked whether it was the Government's intention to do away with the sport of pistol shooting. We should be clear that that will be the effect of the Bill. It will do away with pistol shooting for populist reasons. It will not protect the public, but it will do away with a sport in which many people—not myself—wish to take part.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman asked me to respond specifically to points that are nothing to do with what is before us. His contribution was one of the most fatuous that I have heard in the House of Commons. He has obviously forgotten which issues we are debating. He asked whether it is the Government's intention to do away with pistol shooting. We made it clear in the debate on Monday—as we made it clear in our evidence to Lord Cullen and on Second Reading—that we had originally hoped to allow the continuation of pistol shooting if that could be achieved consistently with protecting the public. We have made that clear from beginning to end. We also made it clear that we did not believe that the public could be protected except by a complete ban on handguns. That is why we are debating the Bill today.
The banning of .22 handguns, including repeat and single-shot pistols, is the essence of the Bill. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) may understand, if I repeat myself very slowly and clearly, that it was not the Government's intention to do away with the sport of pistol shooting, but we came to the conclusion, having examined all the evidence—including that given to Lord Cullen, and his conclusions—that the way to protect the public was to ban all handguns. We concluded that the public would not be protected by banning only the 80 per cent. that were made illegal by the 1997 Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is in his place, and his colleagues.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the points that were made. It was obvious on Monday that several hon. Members had missed the point of the Bill completely. The amendments that were tabled failed to grasp the real issue. For example, someone asked about the point of safety, which was obvious to most people who were interested in the essence of the debate. If handguns were taken out of circulation and there were no legally held weapons, public safety would undoubtedly be increased. Those weapons would not be available for anyone to use.
The essence of the Second Reading debate was that the resources that police forces would have to use to enforce the previous Government's legislation could—once the Bill has been passed, which I am sure the majority of


hon. Members hope will happen—be used to try to rid the nation of illegally held guns. As someone who held a gun licence for many years and enjoyed the sport of shooting, I resent the suggestions that were made by more than one hon. Member on Monday that firearms holders would find some illegal way to maintain their ownership of guns after the Bill became law. I find that offensive, as I am sure do the vast majority of people who hold firearms certificates. It is nonsense to suggest that they will find ways around the legislation and try to own guns illegally.
Clause 1 is the essence of the Bill. The Minister's comments this afternoon satisfied me and, I am sure, the majority of hon. Members and the nation. Public safety will benefit from the Bill. We should welcome it, get on with the vote and give the Bill a swift passage through the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. I am opposed to a measure that will completely ban .22s, and I also disliked the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which confined .22s to gun clubs. I have always argued for the dismantling of .22s and other handguns. I hope that the Minister will respond to the argument today, because it has not been answered effectively, either by the present Government or the previous Government. On Second Reading, the Minister mainly referred to previous answers which he claimed showed that the previous Government's attitude was correct, but they gave only thin answers.
Because I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, I have received letters from people who have contacted me many times before about the human rights issues with which I am normally associated. They are astonished that, for the first time, my response to an issue differs from their attitudes. For the benefit of those people and of the Committee, I wish to explain how someone who has nothing to do with guns and the gun culture comes to believe that dismantling and not a complete ban is the answer.
I wish to explain my position by referring to a letter that I wrote to the Dunblane parents. As part of the Snowdrop campaign, the Dunblane parents visited the House during the Second Reading of the .1997 Act. I met them for 25 minutes and had the harrowing experience of presenting a viewpoint to them that they did not agree with, when all my natural sympathy lay with them and their problems. I do not see myself associated with gun activities, and I am not especially pleased that I have received masses of letters from people in gun clubs thanking me for the stance that I have taken. Gun club members accepted the dismantling argument only when they felt that nothing else was left. I have always believed that dismantling was the right option.
In my letter to the Dunblane parents, I said:
I would like to explain to you the evolution of my thought on the need for legislation. You won't agree with my position; but your understanding is more important to me than letters of encouragement from gun clubs—whom I just don't identify with.
My views developed through the following stages… My initial and lasting response was and is that of any normal person and has been expressed to you many times by people who can explain their feelings much better than I can. It was one of numbness and the deepest fellow human sympathy for the victims, relatives and friends of those involved in the tragedy. I enclose a local newspaper article in which I imperfectly attempted to express such a reaction.

I am sure that all hon. Members share that feeling and wish to respond to the concerns of the Dunblane parents. I continued with my second point:
I then gave support in June to the Dunblane Snowdrop Petition' which, amongst other things said that 'all firearms held for recreational purposes for use in authorised sporting clubs be held securely at such clubs with the firing mechanism removed'. I enclose a press release which I issued in June on the petition.
I should explain that I had issued a press release, which was not used in my local area, so that newspapers would report that I was supporting the Snowdrop petition, thereby encouraging others to sign it. The petition dealt with the arguments for dismantling—although later, as circumstances changed, those involved with the petition moved beyond the position expressed in the petition.
In my letter, I went on to state:
Labour MPs were issued with a Briefing note in August"—
which I enclosed—
which I made use of in answering constituents. It called for handguns to be used and kept safely at properly run gun-clubs. Although this statement didn't call for the firing mechanism to be removed, I then felt that could be tackled at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Therefore, at a time when the Labour party was not proposing a total ban, I sent out a letter quite similar to those that hon. Members once attributed to the Minister without Portfolio.
I went on to write:
I believe that the ground moved towards a total or partial ban following the Conservative majority on the Home Affairs Committee publishing their ill-judged report attempting to defend the home ownership of hand-guns. From my stance…above I obviously disagreed with them, but didn't move into campaigning for a total ban, even when it became my party's position.
I held to the argument on dismantling.
I continued:
When the Cullen report was issued, it reinforced my initial feelings. First, the numbness over the experiences you have all lived through and relived. Secondly, the need to dismantle the firing mechanism of hand guns and come up with an arrangement where no person using hand guns for sporting purposes would have access to a gun they could fire outside of their sports club.
I honestly feel that Cullen's dismantling recommendation is the best way to tackle this terrible problem.
The House has never had a chance to discuss Cullen's recommendations because, as soon as the report was issued, we were dealing with a White Paper and proposed legislation, in which the previous Government made their proposals. Hon. Members should been allowed a proper and full debate on Cullen so that we could better understand the situation. Many hon. Members argue that the House's procedures should be changed so that Standing Committees, like Select Committees, can discuss and investigate the issues behind draft Bills. Such a process could have occurred with the Cullen report, and perhaps no other issue was more deserving of such scrutiny.
I went on to say:
Prohibition (especially total prohibition) on hand guns will, unfortunately, lead to the growth of illegally held and operated guns.


I know some hon. Members believe that such an argument somehow denigrates people who own handguns. I am not attempting to do that. or to suggest that there will be massive growth in such illegal activity —but there will always be reaction to a prohibitive measure. All previous examples of prohibition show that subsequent reaction is likely. I am not associated with gun clubs, but I am—to use prohibition in America as an analogy—rather like a teetotaller who argues against prohibition because of its inherent dangers.
I concluded my letter by stating:
I believe that I'm pursuing a position that is in line with the initial Snowdrop petition. I hope you feel that there is a sense in which I am still with you and always have been.
In this debate, it is important to hear a view that is not associated with gun clubs or their activity, but which is concerned with the growth of that culture and with containing it and moving it in a different direction. The Bill is not the appropriate measure to achieve those goals. It is a counter-productive and rushed bit of legislation which minors the counter-productive and rushed Act passed in the previous Parliament.

Mr. David Maclean: We have heard nothing from the Minister, either today or in Monday's debate, to justify the draconian provisions of clause 1. He has advanced no argument suggesting that some great new advantage in public safety will be achieved if the Bill is passed, and he cannot bring himself to admit the truth, which is that the 1997 Act has already secured public safety. The 1997 Act bans all higher-calibre handguns and insists that .22 calibre weapons be contained only in gun clubs secured to a standard with which the police are satisfied. It also provides that such weapons can be fired only in those specially licensed gun clubs and removed from them only in highly specific circumstances.
Ministers have rejected an amendment tabled by the Opposition, in which we asked whether, with current restrictions, they will exempt single-shot handguns. Ministers said no, and they have adopted an attitude which suggests that they will reject the other amendments that we shall move later in the debate. Their attitude means that pistol shooting as a legitimate, honest sport will be completely eradicated in the United Kingdom.
The Minister failed to say whether, in even the most highly restrictive circumstances, he sees any future for the sport of pistol shooting in the United Kingdom. Obviously, he see no such future because the Government are unwilling to listen. Therefore, because they will not listen, and because they have rejected our amendment, we have decided to vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill. I reaffirm the decision that we took in Monday's debate. The Minister has done nothing to change that decision, and I urge hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.

Mr. Michael: I am sorry that the shadow Minister has given in to the rottweilers on the Opposition Back Benches. Reasserting his statement does not make it true: we have provided reasons and arguments in response to each of the points that have been raised in the debate.
I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but he is completely wrong to say that the issue of dismantling has not been examined. I must put him right on that point, because the issue was fully debated during the passage of the 1997 Act when the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) dealt with it. During the passage of that legislation, the House rejected dismantling of large-calibre handguns and—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I made clear on Second Reading and in Monday's debate—there are no grounds for considering dismantling .22 weapons, with which this legislation is solely concerned. Dismantling is not a practical option and does not provide the degree of safety that the Government want to achieve by banning all handguns.
The general opposition of shadow Ministers may be sincere, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have already comprehensively dealt with it both on Second Reading and in Monday's debate. The shadow Minister's mention of earlier briefings was irrelevant, because we did not start by arguing for a complete ban on all handguns. We reached our view after a careful and considered examination of all the evidence, which has shown that public safety requires the ban proposed in the Bill. That is why clause 1 should and must stand part of the Bill.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 352, Noes 167.

Division No. 31]
[5.47 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burgon, Colin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burstow, Paul


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Butler, Christine


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Canavan, Dennis


Austin, John
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Battle, John
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chaytor, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Church, Ms Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blizzard, Robert
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Cohen, Harry


Brand, Dr Peter
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)




Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Connarty, Michael



Cooper, Ms Yvette


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Corbett, Robin


Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Buck, Ms Karen
Corston, Ms Jean






Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hope, Philip


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Howells, Dr Kim


Dafis, Cynog
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Dean, Ms Janet
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, John
Jamieson, David


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Etherington, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fearn, Ronnie
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Kemp, Fraser 


Flint, Ms Caroline
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W


Flynn, Paul



Follett, Ms Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael John (Worcester
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby)


Galbraith, Sam
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Galloway, George
Kingham, Tessa


Gapes, Mike
Kirkwood, Archy


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lepper, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Leslie, Christopher


Godman, Dr Norman A
Levitt, Tom


Godsiff, Roger
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Golding Mrs Llin
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Linton, Martin


Gorrie, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Graham, Thomas
Livsey, Richard


Grant, Bernie
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lock, David


Grocott, Bruce
Love, Andy


Grogan, John
McAllion, John


Gunnell, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCabe, Stephen


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hancock, Mike
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Healey, John
McFall, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hepburn, Stephen
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Heppell, John
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Hesford, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McMaster, Gordon


Hill, Keith
McNamara, Kevin


Hinchliffe, David
McNutty, Tony





MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Ms Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Mitchell, Austin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stewart Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Ms Estelle (.B'ham Yardley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood.)
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stunell, Andrew


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



 O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Plaskitt,James
Truswell, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Webb, Steven


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Alan


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Rapson, Syd
Wigley, Dafydd


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rendel, David
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)




Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Audrey


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Salmond, Alex
Wyatt, Derek


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Greg Pope and



Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess,David
Baker, Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Barnes, Harry


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J






Berrcow, John
Hunter, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Bottomley,Peter (Worthing W)
Johnson Smith,


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 


Brady, Graham
Keetch, Paul


Brake, Thomas
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Rt Hon tom (Bridgwater)


Brooke, Rt Hon peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burnett, John
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Luff, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash,William 
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mackay, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Maclennan, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensigton)
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh>
Maginnis, Ken


Clarke,Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples,John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Collins, Tim
Maude,Rt Hon Francis


Clovin, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter,Brian
Merchant, Piers


Cran,James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Opik, Lembit



Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, Eric


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Duncan, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Duncan Smith, Iain
Prior, David


Emery,Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Forsythe, Clifford
Sanders, Adrian


Forth, Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fowler,Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Richard (Aldridge)


Fowler,Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Smith,Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Garnier,Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gibb, Nick
Soames,Nicholas


Gillan,Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell,Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, William


Hayes,John
Townend, John


Heald,Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heath, David (Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyler, Paul


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Waterson, Nigel





Whitney, Sir Raymond
Woodward, Shaun


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Willis, Phil
Tellers For the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
and



Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly agreed to

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Mr.Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No 2, in page 2, leave out lines 11 to 21.
The amendment would ensure that the compensation arrangements were brought back to the House after the Bill was enacted, as under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It is essential because the Bill proposes a qualitative change from the 1997 Act that the Government themselves recognise in their business compliance cost assessment, which claims that gun clubs that cater solely or mainly for target pistol shooting will probably have to close. Given that admission, that qualitative change requires further debate.
I am sure that the Government's response will be that they want to enact the Bill quickly and effectively and that the scheme already exists as an ex-gratia scheme, but further debate is necessary because of that step change and because of its impact on business. I have not heard any significant and serious arguments why that impact should not be recognised in the Bill, and further debate would ensure that Opposition Members can have their say.
6 pm
We must be allowed to advance the consistent and coherent argument in favour of recognition being given to the costs to business, especially to those that have incurred debts to set up shooting clubs and shooting associations and will now be left with those debts. Because of the total ban on pistol shooting, no reasonable person could envisage being able to carry on in business if pistol shooting is their sole business. Recognition must also be given to businesses that have lost sales of guns and ancillary equipment. They were going to be harmed by the previous legislation and we felt then that they should be compensated, but that harm will now be compounded in that they cannot pick up compensatory business in .22 sales to replace lost sales of higher-calibre weapons.
Those are serious issues and we do not feel that our arguments have been responded to seriously. The Government have argued that we might be setting a precedent, but we are confident that precedents exist for compensating businesses, such as those arising from the channel tunnel discussions. Issues of compensation and precedent have been raised, but the Government have given us no coherent and consistent intellectual statement on how issues of fairness and justice—the true issues involved in compensating business—can be addressed under the current ex-gratia scheme.
The Bill would simply enshrine in law the ex-gratia scheme and go forward with that. The amendment would require the issue of compensation to be brought back to the House and I urge the Committee to accept the amendment so that we get that further debate.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I strongly agree with the general comments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). I particularly endorse his adoption of the phrase "a step change"—the use of which is not unique to me—to describe the implications of the Bill.
I want to focus the Minister's attention on a specific part of the .22 compensation arrangements. If I do not raise it now, it might not be raised at all. The Government have tried to be helpful, but, in doing so, they have created both the potential for a difficulty of principle and a potential rather than a real inequity. It is right to raise the issue now so that the Minister can consider it. It relates to the fact that with the best motives, as was made clear on Second Reading, the trigger date for compensation for .22s will be October 1996, rather than the date of the announcement in May 1997.
Let me first deal with the point of principle.

Mr. Michael: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. This is an important point, but it is one that I have already clarified and I may be able to prevent him from going down a long road.
We have chosen the date of October 1996 because that is the fairest point at which to set the level of compensation. It is fairest to shooters and probably means that they will be better compensated than if we had chosen the May date, which was when the decision was taken and entered in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Boswell: I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification. I concede that the Government have proceeded with the best of motives, but I want to draw out two potential problems arising from that.
The first point is one of principle. I hasten to say that I am not a lawyer, but I know a little about the law of compulsory purchase. The normal way in which compulsory purchase operates is from the date of entry, or of taking possession, or possibly of notice to treat—for example, if one is required to give up one's land for a bypass, the compensation code takes effect with the valuation set at the time at which one's land passes from one's possession or thereabouts. Similarly, the normal practice when tax codes change, although I am sure that counter examples can be cited, is that the law changes with announcements made on Budget day or thereabouts. Any change is not normally applicable to events that occurred before the Budget, although sometimes it has to be.
My point of principle is that it is an unfortunate departure from a more normal practice of Government that we are not basing compensation on the date when any reasonable person who was the owner of a .22 would have realised that he or she might have to surrender that weapon. That troubles me.
However, there is a further point—

Mr. Michael: I am trying to be helpful because the hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with a serious point.
After October 1996, although the Government at that time intended to ban only the largest-calibre handguns, it must have been obvious that it was increasingly likely that, following the general election, there would be a change of Government, that we would move to a full ban—as we are doing—and that, therefore, values would drop.
If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we used the May date to calculate compensation, it would disadvantage shooters. He should appreciate that we have tried to act in the best interests of the shooters who stand to be compensated.

Mr. Boswell: Let us not go into whether a specific elector or owner of a gun did or did not believe that there would be a Labour Government in four or five months' time; let us confine ourselves to the reality. The Minister rightly notes—the point was made on Second Reading—that the majority of those pistols will have dropped in value between October 1996 and May 1997. I believe that the Government have proceeded with good intentions, even though there is a technical breach of the usual attitude to compulsory purchase, which I have explained to the Committee. I accept their good intentions, but I want to pause on a couple of points.
First, I want to mention something that I discovered by accident the other day when reading a short item about the compulsory purchase of land in a journal that came into my hands. In a recent case, Wickham Growers Ltd. v. Southern Water 1997, which I believed is reported in the Estates Gazette,
it was held that the compensation payable for disturbance"—
although it may well apply to other matters as well—
may have regard to events which occur after the date of entry, even where those events could not be predicted at the time.
That might help in relation to setting an earlier valuation, and Ministers should at least consider that point.
Secondly, I want to express my substantive concern for a specific group of shooters in relation to the compensation statement. I am not an expert on the proposals even of the previous Government, but they consist of the ex-gratia scheme, the specified code under which smaller-calibre weapons as well as larger-calibre ones can be surrendered from 1 July onwards, and option C for specific cases.
It would have been perfectly open, and not perverse or irrational, to a shooter with a .22 weapon to have enhanced the value of that weapon—to have customised it or for another reason to have increased its value—between the date in October 1996 and 14 May 1997, the date of the Queen's Speech. It is unfortunate and unfair if that cannot be taken into account in the compensation arrangements.
We appear to be breaching the usual rules under which compulsory purchase is determined. I am sure that the Government seek to do so for the best of motives: they wish to give owners of .22 weapons a better deal than if the literal date of the Queen's Speech were used. I wonder whether it would be more sensible in principle to use the later date, perhaps even to raise the figure, because the further one gets from the date, the more difficult valuation is. However, I am saying that there may be cases where, quite legitimately and properly, a shooter might have enhanced the value of his weapon before the possession


of that weapon became illegal or became questioned by a firm Government decision, in which case a small inequity might arise. I make the point only to say—

Mr. Michael: In that circumstance, the shooter would of course be able to go through the alternative route proposed in the Bill, by seeking a valuation. The specific circumstances are covered in the arrangements that we have proposed.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify that, but may I have further clarification? In that case, would the valuation be at the date in October or would it be at the last possible date, in May, if the value had been enhanced by then? If that is not so—

Mr. Michael: The later date.

.Mr. Boswell: If that is the case, I believe that, although the objection in principle stands and the Minister might like to reflect on that, the objection in practice may not stand. I believe that he and all of us wish to seek the fairest possible deal for shooters in what are bound to be difficult circumstances. I merely pray this issue in aid as a case for a more rounded consideration of the details of the compensation issue, to eliminate any possible unfairness.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on the way in which he moved the amendment. I support the amendment, and in my short contribution I shall ask the Minister of State a couple of questions to which I am sure he will reply later.
6.15 pm
As recently as last week, we considered compensation when we debated the compensation scheme introduced by the Government under the previous Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. In that debate, it was suggested that it might have been sensible to incorporate compensation for .22 weapons in the same draft compensation scheme, but I appreciate that, with all the technicalities involved, that might have been difficult, if not impracticable.
During last week's debate, we drew attention to the inaccuracies or inadequacies and errors in the original draft compensation scheme tabled on 22 May, which was then withdrawn and re-tabled on 3 June. We put it to the Minister of State that some explanation was required, and we wanted to know why so many changes were required and how many there were.
I thank the Minister for the answer given on 9 June at column 328 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in reply to a question about the changes in that draft compensation scheme. They amount to 37 changes in all, and are a combination of errors, factual errors, and items and values listed in the annexes that were wrong. I now ask, how accurate is the new draft compensation scheme likely to be? I very much hope that when the Government come up with a new scheme, they make a better job of it than they did of the last one.
How soon are we likely to see the new draft compensation scheme for .22 pistols and for the ancillary equipment that goes with them? When addressing that compensation scheme, would the Minister think in terms of compensating for the loss of business, and so on?
In the Bill, estimates are made of £12 million for the cost of weapons and £19 million for equipment, but several people have suggested that those figures are underestimates. Perhaps the Minister will give us a more accurate estimate of the likely compensation total.

Mr. Hancock: I believe that, if they were realistic, hon. Members would concede that most gun owners and certainly people who were trained in guns would say that the value of their weapons and of weapons held in gun clubs and in gunsmiths devalued the day after Dunblane. Once that incident took place, the true value of any weapon was seriously eroded by the hour, if not by the day. That was recognised by gun owners throughout the country.
The compensation legislation allows the individual gun owner to choose between several ways of disposing of a gun. Most of those options are, in the main, very fair. If hon. Members who know about guns study the comparison prices, they will find that, although some individual gun owners will query the value of their individual gun, the figures give a pretty fair price for guns, bearing in mind the circumstances that forced Parliament to take the decisions that it did.
The point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, that Parliament and the Government should have the chance to look again at the unique difficulties faced by some gun clubs and their members when it comes to compensation. Our amendment is a safety valve to allow for some of those difficulties. On Monday, Members of all parties referred to the problems that they knew gun clubs and members—some of them not active members—would face because of the huge sums of money, sometimes running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are at stake. That will leave small groups of members with substantial liabilities and not many assets to dispose of apart from the land on which a club is situated.
I hope that there will be general support for the amendment. It will at least allow the Government to say that they have re-examined the issue of equitable compensation and will give the Committee a chance to vote for it.

Mr. Maclean: The Opposition will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. It is intolerable that the Government should not follow the scheme in the 1997 Act. After all, the Minister spent most of Monday saying that he was religiously following the precedent of that Act and did not wish to depart from it. Yet this scheme departs from the one in the 1997 Act, under which the Government would prepare a draft compensation scheme, lay it before the House and, following a resolution, come up with a final version.
I cannot understand why the Government are afraid to put such a draft before hon. Members. They have an overwhelming majority; they could get it through easily. There would, however, be scope for Opposition Members and Labour Members to point out errors and inconsistencies, and experts from the gun trade would have the chance to make similar points.
This is another example of the Government riding roughshod over the House—ignoring it, circumventing it, or neutering it—as they tried to do with Prime Minister's questions. In this case, they are ignoring Parliament by not laying the draft before the House.
In the original draft scheme that we approved last Monday, there were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, 37 errors. I do not criticise the officials responsible for that. With a highly complex scheme, it is quite understandable that mistakes will be made. Neither was there anything sinister about withdrawing it. Some values rose, some fell, and mistakes were corrected. The point, however, is that it gave the Government, the industry and hon. Members a chance to look at those mistakes. Then the Government speedily produced a revised draft and laid it before the House, which had a chance to approve it last Monday night. No one voted against it—everyone agreed with it.
Why the phenomenal rush? Why are the Government afraid to trust hon. Members by following the procedure in the 1997 Act and letting them have a look at what they propose? They know that they can drive it through. They know that if the proposals are as sensible as the ones we saw last week—and as fair—there will be no opposition from any quarter. So unless the Minister has a compelling reason for not supporting the amendment—I cannot imagine what it would be—we shall join the Liberal Democrats in voting for it tonight.

Mr. Michael: I regret that opportunism on the part of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the Opposition. With his experience of government, he will know that there is not a shred of substance to any of his criticisms of the Government. He is wrong to suggest that the compensation element departs from the principles of the 1997 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what the rush was. It is simply that we want to get .22 guns out of public ownership as quickly as possible. If he had allowed a free vote during the passage of the 1997 Act, such guns would have been banned then. The move would have succeeded on a free vote and we would not have needed this legislation. It is, therefore, his fault that we must deal speedily with the flaw that he left in the legislation by failing to deal properly with a ban on handguns. He had the chance when in government, but he failed to take it.
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong about virtually everything. He was certainly wrong to refer to errors and mistakes. When trying to put right the wrong that he left behind him, we consulted people involved in the sport and the trade and took their suggestions into account. I am grateful for the Opposition's acknowledgment that that was sensible.
Referring to errors and mistakes was rather cheap. We did the best we could to carry on consultations right up to the last minute so as to be able to amend the scheme and use the most precise possible figures.
I have valued the contributions by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He has enhanced his reputation in the short time he has been here with his constructive interventions. He said that it is possible to query specific estimates but that the general scheme seeks to be fair. The legislation includes the safety valve of allowing for a specific valuation; so—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry

(Mr. Boswell)—if a specific piece of equipment is the subject of an error, that error can be rectified. The fact that a specific value is set out in the statutory instrument does not mean that there is no way of getting around it.
Ours is a sensible scheme. I must tell the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) that he sometimes seems to mix up his speeches as between one debate and another. He has a habit of re-running previous debates, and he does not listen to answers that he was given in those debates. We have already explained the 37 changes to which he referred. It is only sensible to take account of advice from sporting and business interests, even though we are trying to get legislation through quickly, so as to give sportsmen and the general public a coherent scheme that will deal with all sizes and calibres of handgun as quickly as possible. As I have told him several times—he does not seem to have grasped it—the scheme is available in the Library, as we pointed out on Monday last.
Of course, total costs can be estimated accurately only to a certain degree—by their nature they are based on estimates. The numbers and types of weapons have been gathered from information given by the police around the country. Estimates have been refined during discussions between officials and police, especially those involved directly with firearms, and business interests and the clubs have also been included. Discovering the precise quantity of guns and ancillary equipment is not a precise science. Listing and valuing each and every weapon would cost a great deal and would cause enormous delays.
I answered most of the points made by the hon. Member for Daventry in interventions because I thought that he was trying to tease out some specific information while making some interesting points about compensation. There are various ways of trying to be fair. Choosing the October date for high-calibre guns, thereby avoiding further declines in value that would come with a later date, is, we believe, the fairest way to approach the valuation of guns and equipment; it is in the interests of shooters. If someone has enhanced his equipment, the alternative route of a specific valuation is available.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about property valuation, but I should have thought this case was more like valuing second-hand cars. There will clearly be a decline in value if someone does not wish to purchase. The likelihood of legislation increases the probability that values will fall, but if that general point does not cover a particular circumstance, specific valuation provides an alternative.

Mr. Boswell: On the specific point that I raised, I am satisfied with the assurance that the Minister has given in relation to guns that may have appreciated in value because of action by their owners. That is precisely why I did not table a specific amendment. I did not wish to send a signal to the Minister and his hon. Friends suggesting that there might be some general diminution in the compensation payable, on account of one or two particular hard cases. Now the Minister has satisfied me on the hard cases.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for that; it takes the sting out of my final point. A later date might be popular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it would reduce the sum to be paid out, but I doubt whether it would be a popular move with the shooters who would seek compensation. I am glad that we can now agree on that.
6.30 pm
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made some reasonable points when he opened the debate, but the amendment would not bring about the aim that he sought. It would not widen compensation to businesses. Any scrutiny that was undertaken by the House would be scrutiny of the compensation allowed by the Bill, and the Bill does not allow the wider compensation of businesses for loss of business, any more than the 1997 Act did.
Neither measure allows for that possibility. Scrutinising the way in which the compensation would be paid would not achieve the effects that the hon. Gentleman stressed. The amendment would not reopen that issue. It would allow parliamentary scrutiny only of the way in which we compensate owners and dealers for the .22 pistols and the ancillary equipment.
I shall explain why I do not think that the amendment would be helpful or good for shooters and the general public. It would require the details of a compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols to be subject to affirmative approval. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could not make compensation payments to owners of small-calibre pistols until the scheme had been approved by both Houses. I see no need for that. Indeed, it could introduce a fresh mischief. It would cause pointless delay and would not be in the interests of the public at large or of shooters.
As I said last week, when we debated the compensation scheme for the 1997 Act, the scheme for small-calibre pistols will be structured on the same basis as that for the higher-calibre weapons. Why require both Houses to go over the same material? Details of the ex-gratia scheme that will operate for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment until the compensation scheme comes into force have already been placed in the Library. Copies are being issued to all claimants at the same time as details of the compensation scheme already approved by the House.
We are encouraging shooters to hand in their guns at one time, which many have said that they wish to do, rather than to wait until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses. Requiring the further compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols to be approved by both Houses would mean an unwelcome delay in bringing the Act into force. We want to remove the firearms from circulation as soon as possible. It is clear from the overwhelming majority who voted for the Bill on Second Reading that they would not want any delay.
It is in the interests not only of the Committee and the public, but of claimants, who no doubt would welcome the introduction of the scheme sooner rather than later so that they can receive their compensation.
Although I fully understand the sensible and coherent arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the amendment would have the effect that he seeks. It would introduce a number of fresh mischiefs, which I am sure he would not want to do.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the larger Opposition party —or should I say parties?—for their support of the amendment, whatever aspersions are cast on its motives.
I support the main thrust of the Bill, which is the complete ban. The step change exists. If it was necessary for the House to give affirmative approval for a scheme

when we were banning 80 per cent. of handguns, it is even more important that we give prior affirmative approval for a scheme that comes into force when we ban 100 per cent. of all handguns.
I shall not go over all the motives—I am trying to set my own precedent by keeping speeches to three or four minutes, as I think that helps hon. Members to pay attention. I intend to press the amendment to a Division, and I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the 100 per cent. ban will have serious knock-on effects which the 80 per cent. ban did not, particularly on the organisations that I mentioned, and that further scrutiny is important.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 305.

Division No. 32]
[6.34 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Norman
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Fearn, Ronnie


Barnes, Harry
Flight, Howard


Befh, Rt Hon A J
Forth, Eric


Bercow, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brake, Thomas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Breed, Colin
Gorrie, Donald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gray, James


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Green, Damian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Greenway, John


Burnett, John
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burstow, Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hammond, Philip


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hancock, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Harris, Dr Evan


Cash, William
Harvey, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, David (Somerton)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Horam, John



Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Collins, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cotter, Brian
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, Rt Hon David



Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keetch, Paul


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)




Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Dorell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kirkwood, Archy






Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lensley, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Letwin, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Robed (W Ab'd'ns)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Livsey, Richard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spicer, Sir Michael


Loughton, Tim
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


LyelI, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


MacKay, Andrew
Swinney, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Syms, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Madel, Sir David



Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Matins, Humfrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Maples, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mates, Michael
Townend, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyler, Paul


Merchant, Piers
Tyrie, Andrew


Moore, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Wallace, James


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Webb, Steven


Oaten, Mark
Wells, Bowen


Opik, Lembit
Welsh, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Willis, Phil


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rendel, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Woodward, Shaun


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ruffley, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Aye:


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Richard Allan and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Andrew Stunell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane 
Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)


Ainger, Nick
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Burgon, Colin


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Butler, Christine


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Byers, Stephen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Beard, Nigel
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benton, Joe
Church, Ms Judith


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Mrs Liz
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blizzard, Robert
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clelland, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradshaw, Ben
Coffey, Ms Ann


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Cohen, Harry



Coleman, Iain





(Hammersmith & Fulham)
Hope, Philip


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, JohnCunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Ms Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Ms Louise
Kidney, David


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Kingham, Tessa


Flint, Ms Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Ms Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Foulkes, George
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Livingstone, Ken


Gardiner, Barry
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andy


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAllion, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Graham, Thomas
McFall, John


Grant, Bernie
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McMaster, Gordon


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Heppell, John
Mendelson, Peter


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hill, Keith
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meale, Alan



Merron, Ms Gillian






Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Mountford, Ms Kali
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Mudie, George
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Soley, Clive


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Southworth, Ms Helen


Norris, Dan
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, William (Nomranton)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Hara, Edward
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Olner, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stott, Roger


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pearson, Ian
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Perham, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Truswell, Paul


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Watts, David


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Alan


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Roy, Frank
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wood, Mike


Ryan. Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Wray, James


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry



Shipley, Ms Debra
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 21, after `made.', insert—
(3B) Payments made under this scheme relating to small-calibre pistols or equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with such pistols, shall be received within 30 days of agreement of the valuation.'.
This is a straightforward amendment. The Opposition believe that the Bill is unnecessary and unfair. Thousands of target pistol shooters up and down the country will be deprived of the sport that they may have enjoyed for many years. Under the legislation as it is currently drafted, Britain's shooters will no longer be able to compete on an international level. Therefore, it is right that the owners of lower-calibre handguns that are banned by this

legislation should be compensated speedily with a minimum of delay. The amendment will ensure that that occurs.
We believe that Governments should set an example by paying their bills and debts swiftly. The last Conservative Administration developed a British standard of prompt payment to which all Government Departments and their agencies signed up. As a result, league tables of Government Departments' payment performances are now published. However, the Labour party apparently wishes to go further than that. The Prime Minister has pledged:
We will introduce a requirement…for government departments and public agencies to pay their bills within 30 days".
That is what the then Leader of the Opposition said on 16 September 1996 in a speech to the City of London Corporation.
Much was said during the election campaign about trust. Quite simply, the Government have the opportunity tonight to support the amendment to show that they honour the promise made by the Prime Minister on 16 September 1996. They have the opportunity to demonstrate that they can be trusted to fulfil that promise.
We look forward to receiving the Government's support so that the payments of compensation authorised under the Bill can be made within 30 days, thus honouring the Prime Minister's promise.

Mr. Boswell: To follow on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and given the spirit of our discussions, I invite the Government to consider whether they would be prepared to pay interest should it prove impossible for payment to be made within 30 days in a particular case.

Mr. Michael: It is intriguing to listen to this debate. I am beginning to enjoy the contributions from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) from the Opposition Benches because I am starting to contrast them with the contributions he made about the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which he steered through the House.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's thought processes are becoming quite convoluted. For instance, if the Opposition are now so keen to specify a time limit on the payment of compensation, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain to us why the then Government did not include such a 30-day time limit in the 1997 Act. After all, he was personally responsible for steering that legislation through the House.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If a 30-day limit is reasonable for small-bore handguns and their ancillary equipment, it is similarly reasonable for large-bore handguns and their ancillary equipment. The right hon. Gentleman did not include such a provision in the 1997 Act, but, suddenly tonight, we have a convert to the rapid payment of bills.

Mr. Boswell: The new Government have set themselves up as the proud possessor of higher standards than their predecessor. The Opposition are merely seeking to help and encourage them to impose on themselves the obligation to meet their own high standards.

Mr. Michael: It is very nice of the hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the previous Government, to feel


that he has learnt so much during those depressing days that he can now contribute to the quality of the legislation brought forward by the new Government.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an inconsistency in the Opposition's argument. If they felt that a time limit of 30 days was reasonable, they had the opportunity to set one in the 1997 Act. If they had done so, that would have been mirrored in our compensation arrangements, because, as I made clear in the debates a week ago, the arrangements that we are making for smaller-calibre guns mirror those in the statutory instrument governing the compensation scheme for larger-calibre guns. The Opposition stand condemned out of their own mouths for not even considering what they now, belatedly, argue is an important provision.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is under some confusion. He is in government and, therefore, he should be making the decisions. We would like the money to be paid in 30 days.

Mr. Michael: In an earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman complained that the Government were being too decisive about getting things done by introducing legislation to get rid of .22 handguns, which he is so keen to keep on our streets and in our homes. We are getting on, fairly and reasonably, with that job.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that we are a Government who believe in paying bills on time. He is right, but the amendment does not attempt to ensure that bills are paid on time. Instead, it would guarantee a short period of time after the agreement on a valuation within which all the money would be received. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clarify whether he intends to target the amendment only at those claims made under option C, which include individual valuations. If disputed, that might mean that an independent valuation is made.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has thought that through and whether the Opposition's proposal applies only to such cases, or to other options as well. Perhaps he will illuminate the House, now or later, as to his intention in the amendment.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, although I appreciate its sentiments. As I made clear in debates last week on the compensation scheme under the 1997 Act, payments will be made as quickly as possible. I can assure the House that that assurance applies equally to small-calibre pistols—we wish to deal with the compensation as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
As we made clear last week, however, the pressures on police forces and the arrangements made by chief constables will vary. Different arrangements will be needed in urban as opposed to rural areas. Those arrangements and the decisions of chief constables must be respected. Those variations will exert different types of pressure on respective police forces. We, too, will put pressure on those forces. I have discussed the matter with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and I am certain that they will try to deal with compensation as quickly as possible. It would therefore be unreasonable to include in primary legislation the requirement sought by the amendment.
The majority of straightforward claims, which will be made under options A and B, will be dealt with quickly. Claims under option C, which will be based on individual

valuations, will take longer to process because they will need to be considered individually. It is reasonable that that should be done and that proper consideration should be given in each case.
I am sure that the Opposition, who have argued for the interest of shooters as they see them, would not want us to introduce measures that exerted excessive pressure on the police and others connected with the scheme to rush those arrangements. I stress that adequate time must be given for the scheme to be operated, but, even so, payments will be made as quickly as possible.

Mr. Richard Allan: Do we take it that the time it will take for people to receive compensation will depend on the efficiency of individual police officers, and the burden placed on them? Does the Minister agree that it is therefore likely to be case that, depending on where one lives, the time taken for compensation to be paid could be dramatically different?

Mr. Michael: It could depend on a number of factors. The police are endeavouring to introduce arrangements to ensure that everyone can be compensated as quickly as possible so that the receipt of handguns and their ancillary equipment can be completed as expeditiously as possible.
It is impossible to be sure where a rush might occur. All the members of a shooting fraternity in an area may decide to hand in all their guns quickly. It is quite likely that all members of a gun club would agree on when to hand in their guns and seek compensation. Some of the pressures are unpredictable and that is what makes it unsafe to try to specify a constrained period of days, as proposed in the amendment.

Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment at least seeks to tie prompt payment to the agreed date of valuation, rather than to the date when weapons are handed in? We obviously accept that there is a problem in that regard with option C weapons. We are concerned simply with the administrative delay that might arise after a valuation. No one wishes to put valuers under unreasonable pressure so that they reach a quick, bad decision. Clearly, they must have time to make the right decision.

Mr. Michael: I accept that. I have spoken to the chief constables and others who will be involved in the exercise, so I understand the pressures to which it will subject them. They accept that it is in the public interest that the necessary arrangements should be made and that they should be implemented as expeditiously as possible. Likewise, we accept that we want the payments to be made as expeditiously as possible. The purpose behind the amendment is to introduce a straitjacket. Conservative Members should accept that the Government will do all that they can—we shall have discussions with the police and everyone else involved about the arrangements that we seek to make—to ensure that, as far as possible, we meet the requirements that are being sought within the terms of the amendment. However, to introduce such a straitjacket in primary legislation is inappropriate.

7 pm

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I intervene on two points of clarification. The Minister is talking about a straitjacket. As I understand the


amendment, the purpose behind it is to put in statutory form the Government's intention to make payment within 30 days. That is obviously 30 days of applying the statutory amount of compensation or the agreed amount of compensation if it comes within option C. I am not clear why the police having to make inquiries has much to do with what we are discussing. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification.
Secondly, is it the intention that interest should arise if someone were left for some considerable time beyond 30 days without compensation? I understand that that lies behind the Government's general proposals for interest on non-payment of debts.

Mr. Michael: I do not see that such a provision lies within the amendment, which would simply introduce a requirement.
We are not envisaging or planning for delays in making compensation payments. Pressure, however, will be put on the police and many others as a result of a temporary arrangement. How quickly we can finalise arrangements and have everyone handing in their guns depends partly on how expeditiously the proposed legislation is enacted and implemented. If the Bill passes through Parliament quickly, much will depend on whether we can back the arrangements for whatever weapons people have not handed in voluntarily to be handed in subsequently and quickly by an extension of the compensation scheme. I have in mind the employment of people and the arrangements that are already in hand.
We are talking of temporary arrangements to deal with specific circumstances. That makes the acceptance of the amendment inappropriate. The general principle is that we should seek to ensure that compensation is paid as quickly as possible and, if possible, within the period to which reference has been made. That might be thought of as aspirational, but it is something that we shall seek to do with the co-operation of everyone involved, if that is at all possible.
There are a couple of points to be made on a problem that is involved in implementing the compensation process. We are talking of 60,000 claimants, who will all submit claims within a short time. It would not be practicable to set a specific number of days within which individual claimants would receive payments. The sheer volume of claims to be made prevents that. Some claims will be processed before others and some claims might take longer than others.
There is, sensibly, no time requirement applying to payments under the compensation scheme for large-calibre handguns. There is nothing in logic, therefore, that requires that there should be one within the scheme for small-calibre pistols. That would be entirely inconsistent.

Mr. Boswell: I raised earlier the issue of interest, and the matter was taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) with greater eloquence. Will the Minister consider, in cases where things go sadly wrong because

of some administrative error, the payment of ex gratia interest? I do not seek an immediate answer now. Perhaps he will take away the point and think about it.

Mr. Michael: I hope that there will not be gross incidents of delay, other than those where there might be specific complications on an option C valuation where there is a considerable amount of debate because values are not being accepted. We want to see all cases dealt with as expeditiously as possible. We shall seek to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that we shall receive the full co-operation of the police and all those who are involved in the Home Office. We shall try to ensure that everything goes as smoothly as possible.
We are dealing, however, with a challenging task. We are progressing rapidly because we believe that it is in the public interest for the guns concerned rapidly to be removed from general public ownership. The Association of Chief Police Officers and others have accepted our objective and supported us in trying to get the arrangements into place. I place on record my thanks to all those concerned, including individual chief constables, in seeking to implement the arrangements.
I return to a final point of simple logic: no time limit was placed on larger handguns. I accept, of course, that the Bill does not deal with them. That being so, it would be illogical to put a straitjacket on the way in which we deal with .22 handguns. I accept the aspiration that we deal quickly and efficiently with all claims—I undertake that we shall do all that we can to achieve that—but it would not be sensible or logical to accept the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: This is a matter not of simple logic but of whether or not the Prime Minister's word is to be trusted. There have been some interesting revisions of Government policy this evening from a Minister of State in Her Majesty's Government. We assume that he is speaking with the authority of the Government. We have been told that the policy is not to have payment within 30 days, but to try, with all efforts, to pay as soon as is practicable or as soon as possible, leaving no stone unturned to pay Government debts as soon as they can be paid.
The Minister said repeatedly that we cannot have 30-day payments because that would impose a straitjacket on the Government. Does that mean, therefore, that the Prime Minister's statement on 16 September 1996 that a requirement would be introduced—it was not a straitjacket then, when the right hon. Gentleman was on the prawn cocktail circuit, wining and dining business men and pursuing their votes—by a Labour Government for the millennium was not a commitment that the Government would pay their bills within 30 days?
The previous Government did not insert such a requirement in the 1997 Act because we were content to rest with the provisions that we had introduced with the development of the British standard payment. We had decided to publish league tables of the Government's performance, and we were content to rest on that. At the same time, we took the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), at his word. He went round telling business men that a new Labour Government would introduce a requirement that Government bills would be paid within 30 days.
That is why we have tabled the amendment. We have been presented with our first chance to test the word of the new Government, and especially that of the Prime Minister. Can they be trusted on the issue of the Government paying their bills?

Sir Nicholas Lye11: Would I be right in understanding my right hon. Friend to be saying that the word of the Prime Minister for a requirement seems, having regard to the words of the Minister of State, to have become a pious hope?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. It was not even a pious hope. It amounted to, "We shall do our best to pay if we can within 30 days." The requirement that the Prime Minister wanted is now regarded by the Minister of State as a straitjacket into which the Government do not wish to insert themselves. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister is concerned about froth on the top of beer glasses. It seems that his concern for the Government to pay their bills within 30 days was froth before the general election. It seems also that it can be blown away like froth from a beer glass.
The Opposition will force the amendment to a Division because it goes to the issue of whether the Prime Minister's words can be trusted or whether they can be overruled by a Minister of State, Home Office.

Mr. Michael: What a surprise. The Opposition have found specious reasons to have another Division. It seems that they need to fill in the time. I have listened with admiration and astonishment to the developing capacity of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for invention. What a pious intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11).
I have made it clear that we are dealing with a temporary arrangement, which will be dealt with properly by the police and civil servants, under great pressure. The reason for that pressure is that there is pressure to get handguns off the streets and out of people's homes.
The right hon. Gentleman had to find some specious excuse for not having put in his Bill something that he now requires us to put in ours. His arguments were indeed specious. Of course people can trust the word of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is why he is Prime Minister, and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is where he deserves to be—on the Opposition Benches.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 301.

Division No. 33]
[7.9 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Blunt, Crispin


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Baker, Norman
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brake, Thomas


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Brand, Dr Peter


Barnes, Harry
Brazier, Julian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Breed, Colin





Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Burstow, Paul
Luff, Peter


Butterfill, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cable, Dr Vincent
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
MacKay, Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclennan, Robert



Major, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Oaten, Mark



Opik, Lembit


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan 
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Rendel, David


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fearn, Ronnie
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forth, Eric
Ruffley, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fraser, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gorrie, Donald
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Syms, Robert


Harvey, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Heath, David (Somerton)



Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Temple—Morris, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William


Horam, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter



Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Walter, Robert


Keetch, Paul
Wardle, Charles


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Waterson, Nigel



Webb, Steven


Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilkinson, John


Lansley, Andrew
Willetts, David






Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Woodward, Shaun
and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Crausby, David


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dean, Ms Janet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Berry, RogerBest, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Robert
Edwards, Huw


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Ms Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Ms Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Follett, Ms Barbara



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Fyfe, Maria


Buck, Ms Karen
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Byers, Stephen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman A


Canavan, Dennis
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Graham, Thomas


Cawsey, Ian
Grant, Bernie


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Gunnell, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker. Verrnon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)
Hoey, Kate



Home Robertson, John


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Hope, Philip


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)





Howells, Dr Kim
Michael, Alun


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Miller, Andrew



Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hutton, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Brian
Mountford, Ms Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mudie, George


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)



O'Hara, Edward


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Perharn, Ms Linda


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Pond, Chris


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby)
Rammell, Bill


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rapson, Syd


Kingham, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salmond, Alex


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Love, Andy
Sawford, Phil


McAllion, John
Shaw. Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCabe, Stephen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Singh, Marsha


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McFall, John



McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Soley, Clive


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Speller, John


McMaster, Gordon
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNamara, Kevin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWilliam, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Meale, Alan
Tipping. Paddy


Merron, Ms Gillian
Todd, Mark






Trickett, Jon
Wicks, Malcolm


Truswell, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winnick, David


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wray, James


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wyatt, Derek


Watts, David



White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Alan
Mr. Jim Dowd and



Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Howard: The Bill goes much further than the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: it will kill off pistol shooting and make many gun clubs unviable. The 1997 Act would have allowed pistol shooters to continue with their sport on condition that they used only lower-calibre handguns. During the passage of that Act, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of the ban on higher-calibre guns. An important justification for that view was the fact that shooters of high-calibre pistols could convert to .22s and continue to enjoy their sport. It was difficult to argue that clubs could not continue as venues for pistol shooting while .22 pistols remained lawful.
A total ban will force some clubs to close, and that fundamentally alters the previous position on compensation. The majority of the 2,118 approved gun clubs throughout Great Britain are non profit making: they were set up and are run by volunteers. It is true that clubs whose members shoot rifles and pistols could survive a total ban on handguns, but that would very much depend on the proportion of pistol shooters to rifle shooters. However, clubs that are almost entirely pistol clubs will, in all probability, face certain closure as a result of the Bill.
Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the majority of gun clubs are non profit making and do not have vast financial reserves to enable them to weather the storm of a total ban. Given that those clubs have mortgages or leases, their members or owners could face significant personal liabilities and loss as a result of closure.
It is the Opposition's view that, given the extent of the Bill and its departure from the principles of the 1997 Act, which did not bring pistol shooting to an end in this country, the issue of compensation must be revisited. Naturally, we hope that as many clubs as possible will survive, but those clubs that are forced to close as a result of the circumstances created by the total ban on handguns introduced by the Bill should be compensated.
On Second Reading, we argued that the Bill as it currently stands is unfair. At column 1163, the Home Secretary gave an entirely reasonable response. He said that if the Government had departed from the principles that we had followed, he would consider the point that we had made. I regret to say that the Minister was a good deal less reasonable when he wound up the debate. He dismissed our questions by referring to the debate that had taken place at the beginning of the last week on the compensation arrangements under the 1997 Act, but we

were not objecting to those arrangements. Our argument is that the total ban introduced by this legislation fundamentally alters the position. That is why we believe that the arrangements proposed by the Government are unfair, and why we do not believe that clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on compensation. It would not involve a large number of clubs. Some of them are small businesses. However, a significant number will go out of business. People who are not rich will be left with burdens of debt for which they have no possibility of compensation unless the Government are prepared to reconsider the matter along the lines that the Home Secretary seemed to accept but to which the Minister offered blanket opposition.
What we are asking for is entirely reasonable. When pistol clubs were denied the use of a heavier grade of pistol, they could have set up afresh or reconstituted themselves as clubs using .22 handguns. There would have been support for that, for reasons connected with the Olympic games and for the more specialised reasons connected with disabled people, which we shall debate in a moment.
It follows inexorably from the Government's determination to take all pistols out of private ownership and to stop clubs holding pistols that gun clubs that are confined to pistols must close. If they have debts or mortgages, they will be left uncompensated. All I ask of the Minister is that he listens carefully to our argument. If he is not capable, by reason of the instructions that he has been given, to give us the answer that we seek now, I hope that he will he go away and think about it.

Mr. Oliver Heald: There is a distinction between higher-calibre handguns, such as were used by Thomas Hamilton and which were outlawed under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, and the .22 calibre weapon that we are debating. When decisions were made under the previous Government, one factor that was taken into account was that a higher-calibre handgun is not specifically designed for sport. Many of those weapons have been developed for use in self-defence and by police forces and the military.
The higher-calibre handgun, which tends to be used against individuals, should be seen in a different context from the .22 handgun, which is used in international sport. Target shooting with .22 guns is accepted as an international sport throughout the world, and recognised as such by the Olympic movement. No doubt there are reasons for that. The .22 is used mainly for sport, and lacks some of the features of higher-calibre handguns to which I have referred.
7.30 pm
Against that background, the Committee should view the compensation issue differently. It is one thing to get rid of certain handguns because they are higher-calibre weapons; it is different to say that there shall be no target shooting in Britain when the wisdom throughout the world is that target shooting may occur in particular conditions—and the 1997 Act laid down the strictest possible security conditions. I think that the last Government were right to say, "We are not outlawing the


sport altogether; if you wish to follow the conditions laid down in the Act, you may continue. You have that option." What is now being said is "There shall be no sport of this kind: every club in the country must close." That is relevant to the question of compensation.
Apart from being a very authoritarian measure, the proposal should prompt new Labour to think about the fact that every other country, and every international sporting body, is prepared to permit the sport to continue. Is it right for Britain to be the one country which is standing out against it? It is in that context that the considerations relating to compensation in this Bill are so different from those in the 1997 Act.
All the gun clubs will have to close, and many of their owners—some in my constituency—will be in financial difficulty. Could not the Government meet the Opposition at least half way—perhaps a little further—and make compensation available to clubs?

Mr. Michael: I have listened carefully to what has been said, but I can respond briefly, because nothing new has been contributed. All the points that have been made have been answered comprehensively, convincingly and repeatedly, on Second Reading and before and since then.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary, says that the Bill will kill off pistol shooting and close many gun clubs. Let me remind him that precisely the same argument was advanced by Conservative Members when he introduced the Bill that is now the 1997 Act. There is nothing new in it, and he rejected it then. He should read the speeches that he made when he was in government, because they deal comprehensively with the speeches that he is making in opposition.

Mr. Heald: Surely even the hon. Gentleman accepts the difference between stopping all target shooting—and therefore closing every gun club in the country—and leaving the option available.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should heed the arguments that have been advanced by his hon. Friends on other occasions. It is nice of him to join us for a while, but he is making precisely the points that they have made previously. We have been through those arguments time and again; we debated them on Second Reading. We will reject the extension of compensation suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, for precisely the reasons that he gave in government. He was not willing to extend compensation to businesses, and nor are we.
It comes down to a simple point of disagreement: we simply disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He could have dealt with the proposals in the Bill much earlier in the year if he had allowed a free vote when he was piloting his Bill through the House, but he was not willing to listen then, and we are therefore having to deal with the issue now.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Michael: Perhaps what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe gave us was a spare

speech left over from Second Reading. He does not agree with the Bill; he does not agree with the banning of .22 guns. We feel that it is necessary to ban them, and that his decisions in rejecting that proposition—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) must not remain standing when an hon. Member is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Michael: I am making a very brief point—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Michael: I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister, but will he please address the argument? It is not good enough simply to say that counter-arguments were advanced in the debate on the earlier Bill. The question that we want the Minister to answer is this. As a result of the blanket ban on handguns, which wipes out the .22, small clubs and small businesses are themselves wiped out in certain instances. Is it the Government's policy not to compensate a small club or business in any circumstances? If so, will the Minister please explain why?

Mr. Michael: We have explained ad nauseam. Great credit was given to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being so open and honest on Second Reading about what the effect of the Bill would be, and he was right to be honest. It is better to have the matter out in the open—but that has left nothing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to chew on at this stage. We rejected the idea of extending compensation to businesses, just as his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary did. We believe that retaining .22 guns would be dangerous, and we are not willing to do it. That is why we are going to vote on the matter. We have presented the measure quickly, so that the change to only .22 pistols—and hence another round of change and compensation—will not be required, as it would have been had we delayed it.
I am afraid that, again, there is disagreement between us. We believe that it would be unsafe to allow the partial—80 per cent.—ban on handguns introduced by the last Government. We need the ban on .22 guns in the public interest, and it is therefore essential that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Allan: As I become accustomed to the proceedings of the Committee, I find that I am having to live with a chronic sense of deja vu as arguments are repeated again and again at every stage. We advanced the argument that we wanted to present—about the inadequacy of compensation—in the amendment that we tabled, but, now that we have lost that, I believe that those of us who support the Bill's aims in general, while disagreeing with the compensation scheme, should accept with good grace that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Those of us who disagree with the Bill in principle—and a number of Liberal Democrats do, for good, sound Liberal reasons—will continue to oppose the clause.

Mr. Howard: Once again, the Minister has completely failed to deal with our arguments. He does not deal with


them by saying that he has already dealt with them, when he manifestly has not; nor does he deal with them by saying that there is a disagreement between the two sides. Of course there is a disagreement. What we expect from the Minister in these circumstances is some kind of reason justifying the Government's position, but we have heard no reason at all.
The trouble with the Minister is that he is so obtuse that one never quite knows whether he is deliberately failing to see the point, or accidentally and genuinely failing to do so. Let me repeat the point in the simplest language that I can use—and I will be happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to answer it at last.
The point is simply this. There is a fundamental difference between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the 1997 Act. The Act did not bring pistol shooting to an end. It was therefore possible for clubs where pistol shooting took place to continue, and .22 shooting could continue in those clubs although the legislation had banned the use of higher-calibre pistols. This Bill brings pistol shooting completely to an end and that means a fundamental difference in the attitude to compensation.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he would listen carefully to any arguments that sprang from the proposition that the Government had departed from the principles that we had previously advanced. As I said at that time, it was not so much a suggestion that the Government were departing from those principles as that they were failing to apply them to the different circumstances that now pertain. That is the point and, on Second Reading, the Minister, in the most extraordinary way, refused to answer it by referring to the answers that he had given a few days earlier in the debate on the compensation arrangements in the 1997 legislation.
Our point is that this measure is fundamentally different from the provisions of the 1997 Act for the simple and clear reason that I have given. That is why the compensation arrangements need to be revisited and why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
If, at this 1 1 th hour, the Minister is prepared to answer that argument and explain why the Government disagree with us on this issue, I shall be happy to give way to him. So far, we have had no response whatever to our clear and concise argument. That is why we propose to divide the Committee.

Mr. Michael: The disagreement is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the legislation is fundamentally different and we do not. Gun clubs will be able to continue: it is just that their members will not be able to use pistols. They will be able to use rifles. To be called obtuse by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a curious form of flattery. He does not create a failing on the part of the Government by asserting that there is a failure: he demonstrates an inability to understand the answers that he has been given.
The legislation has been introduced on a point of principle. As a result of looking at all the evidence and listening to all the arguments, we think that there is a need to ban the possession of all handguns, and we do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 143.

Division No. 34]
[7.41 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Crausby, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare


Bayley, Hugh
Dafis, Cynog


Beard, Nigel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Ms Janet


Berry. Roger
Denham, John


Best, Harold
Dismore, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Dobson. Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Robert
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Efford, Clive


Brand, Dr Peter
Ellman, Ms Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Fearn, Ronnie



Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Flint, Ms Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Ms Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Butler, Christine
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorrie, Donald


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia



Hill, Keith


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret






Home Robertson, John
McWilliam, John


Hood, Jimmy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hope, Philip
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Howells, Dr Kim
Martlew, Eric


Hoyle, Lindsay
Maxton, John


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Meale, Alan



Merron, Ms Gillian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michael, Alun


Humble, Mrs Joan
Milburn, Alan


Hurst. Alan
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Iddon, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Morley, Elliot


Jamieson, David
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Mountford, Ms Kali


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Mudie, George


Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Edward


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby)
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kingham, Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie



Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Liddell, Mrs Helen



Linton, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andy
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAllion, JohnMcAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McMaster, Gordon
Singh, Marsha


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony




Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Soley, Clive





Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wallace, James


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Webb, Steven


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Welsh, Andrew


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
White, Brian


Stunell, Andrew
Whitehead, Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Swinney, John
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)




Winnick, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wray, James


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wyatt, Derek


Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gibb, Nick


Arbuthnot, James
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gray, James


Baker, Norman
Green, Damian


Baldry, Tony
Grieve, Dominic


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gummer. Rt Hon John


Bercow, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Blunt, Crispin
Hammond, Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Harris, Dr Evan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Harvey, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heath, David (Somerton)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Burnett, John



Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith,


Clappison, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Key, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Collins, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Colvin, Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Letwin, Oliver


Cotter, Brian
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir DavidMalins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Flight, Howard
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
May, Mrs Theresa


Foster, Don (Bath)
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam
Moore, Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm






Nicholls, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Norman, Archie
Steen, Anthony


Oaten, Mark
Swayne, Desmond


Opik, Lembit
Syms, Robert


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paterson, Owen
Townend, John


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Prior, David
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Robathan, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walter, Robert


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wardle, Charles


Ruffley, David
Waterson, Nigel


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whittingdale, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Simon Burns and



Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3

EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL COMPETITION SHOOTERS

'.—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.

(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and
(b) the pistol is used by a person approved of by the Secretary of State and who is certified by the recognised governing body of the sport to be a person who has been invited to be a member of the group from which national competitors at international competitions will be selected; and
(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State as approved for the storage and use of weapons to which section 5 of the 1968 Act applies; and
(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic Games, or qualifying competitions.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Exemption for registered disabled national competition shooters—

`—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol

chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used by a person approved of by the Secretary of State and who has a physical disability and is a registered disabled person; and
(b) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and
(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State as approved for the storage and use of weapons to which section 5 of the 1968 Act applies; and
(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic Games, or qualifying competitions.'

Mr. Maclean: The Opposition support tough and rigorous gun controls. In office, we gave Britain some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. However, unlike this Bill, our Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was tough and rigorous, but would have allowed continued controlled use of 22 lower calibre handguns for target pistol shooting. It would have allowed British citizens to continue to compete in .22 calibre pistol events that are recognised in Olympic competition—free pistol, sport pistol and rapid-fire pistol events.
This country has a long-established tradition of target pistol shooting, which is one of the first of the modern Olympic events; it was introduced in the 1870s. Britain does well at the sport. Over the past 10 years, we have won 23 medals in .22 target pistol events at Commonwealth competitions. The instant effect of the Bill will be to kill off that sport, just like that, for all those law-abiding and decent people who enjoy it and do well at it. British citizens, unlike those of any other major sporting nation, will be prohibited from competing in national and international events.
We recognise that the Government want to ban all handguns, but we urge Ministers and the Home Secretary to reconsider the position of national competition shooters. The new clause would allow those existing national competition shooters who represent national pistol shooting squads and those identified by the national bodies as suitable to train for Olympic disciplines to continue to train for and compete in national and international .22 calibre pistol competitions.
The number of competition shooters is small. They are drawn from the national squad, of which there are around 100 members. Before qualifying for the national squad, most shooters will have worked their way up through the 13 squads in the regions covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are around 350 members of those squads.
The new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to designate specific centers—or, if it comes to it, the Opposition would accept even one specific centre such as Bisley, if he is minded to say that two, three, half a dozen or a large number of centres are too many. He could have complete say over how many centres there are. As I say, we would happily accept allowing one national centre of excellence to survive, so that pistol shooting for those few people could continue in strictly controlled


conditions. The new clause, therefore, would give the Home Secretary the power to designate specific centres where those competition shooters would be able to train.
At the moment, such a site would obviously be Bisley and, after the Commonwealth games, could also include Altcar. I presume that something will have to be built for the Commonwealth games at Manchester. One or two more sites could be developed around the country, perhaps based on Army facilities.
The new clause is not an attempt to subvert the Bill. It is clear that clauses 1, 2 and 3 have gone through. The Government have made absolutely clear—and they won by large majorities in Committee tonight and on Monday night—the main, central purpose of their Bill: to all intents and purposes, no more .22 calibre weapons will be left in the hands of ordinary people in gun clubs. We have lost the vote on allowing gun clubs to continue in this country, even under the most rigorous and strictly controlled conditions. We are suggesting that the Government should allow one or two international centres of excellence. The Home Secretary could impose strict conditions and they would be the only places in the country where .22 weapons could be stored and fired.
8 pm
Under the new clause, a certificate to shoot at a designated centre would be granted to those chosen for the national squad. People could not just wander in off the street and say, "I fancy a bit of pistol shooting—can I fire that gun?" The people in the national squad are chosen by the governing bodies of competitive target shooting in the United Kingdom—the National Rifle Association and the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, fulfilling the criteria set out by the Sports Council.
We have included in the new clause a provision giving the Home Secretary, or people designated by him, extra discretion to approve the squad members. Therefore, I do not think that the Home Secretary can claim that it would mean a glaring loophole.
We want the sport to survive, in a highly limited way, in Britain. All we are asking for is one or two national centres of excellence, under strict Government control. People using the centres would have to be authorised and licensed to shoot there, and also nominated by the professional associations. They could use only .22 weapons that could not leave the centre, except under strict conditions when shooters are competing at Olympic or Commonwealth competitions.
The new clause is practical. I accept that drafting amendments may be necessary and perhaps it could be tidied up in another place. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the principle behind what we are trying to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that it would put the public at risk. No pistols would be held or used outside a designated site. That site would have been approved by the Home Secretary for all section 5 weapons, including the most dangerous, so security would be at the highest possible level.
In addition, competition shooters certified to shoot .22s at a designated site would need a valid firearms certificate, which means that they would have had to pass

the chief constable's vetting. They would also have had to be approved by the Secretary of State and approved and vetted by the shooting organisations that govern the Olympic sport of target pistol shooting.
The new clause would allow Britain to continue to compete in target pistol shooting competitions recognised by the Olympic committee. As such, it has been welcomed by Simon Clegg, the general secretary of the British Olympic Association. If the Government do not accept the new clause, for whatever reason, the sport will be destroyed. Then Britain could face absurd and practical difficulties in hosting international sporting events.
Manchester won its bid to host the Commonwealth games because of its commitment to hold target pistol shooting events. The original proposal was to leave those events out of the games, but that provoked such hostility from the other Commonwealth nations that Manchester relented and included .22 target pistol shooting. That is not a shocking fact, given that shooting is the third most popular sport in the Commonwealth games.
If there is to be a blanket ban, and no provision is made for our national competition shooters to continue their sport at a top security designated site, in 2002 foreign competitors will participate and win events that are not only illegal under British law, but in which there will be no contestants from the host country. British teams, which are among the strongest, would be relegated to the terraces.
The Bill as it stands is a Bill too far. We have said repeatedly that it is unfair. We tabled the new clause in an attempt to introduce an element of fairness. I hope that the Government will accept it.
We are also discussing new clause 4, which relates to disabled shooters. I have already said that thousands of law-abiding, decent, upstanding people will lose their sport. The Government have not produced any justification for their draconian provisions.
One group that would suffer from a total ban is disabled shooters. Pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which everyone competes on an equal footing—whether young, old, male, female, able-bodied or disabled. There are scores of disabled shooters in Britain. For many of them, target pistol shooting is more than a pastime—it is an activity which helps substantially to improve their quality of life. Pistol shooting can also help them to cope more effectively with their disability.
The British Paraplegic Shooting Association says that many disabled people are encouraged to take up pistol shooting
as a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport. This provides them with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world.
British disabled target pistol shooters have achieved staggering success in international competitions. They use .22 calibre pistols for six events in the Paralympics. At the 1996 Atlanta Paralympics, disabled shooters won silver and gold medals and set a new record. At the European championships in 1995, disabled shooters won one gold medal, two silver and one bronze. In the World games in 1994, they won two gold medals, two silver and two bronze.
I understand that there are about 375 clubs with facilities for the disabled. I think that about 100 disabled people will compete at the fifth annual national


championships organised by the National Small-Bore Rifle Association. Those figures are the best analysis I can make of the probable numbers of disabled people. I am working on the assumption of 375 clubs, each having, perhaps, one disabled member, with about 100 of those wanting to compete. It is obvious, therefore, that our proposal would not drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
The Government want to remove the remaining 20 per cent. of handguns from the general population. I have already made a plea for a specially designated top security site where a national shooting squad could train for the Olympics. The new clause deals with registered disabled people and would benefit at most a few hundred people. They would be subject to the most rigorous controls, would have to hold firearms certificates and, if necessary, could keep their weapons only in specially designated and secure sites.
At this stage in the proceedings, having lost the votes on clauses 1, 2 and 3, we must accept that the Government's main provisions will stand. They will drive them through. Our simple new clause would allow an exemption for registered disabled people so that they could continue shooting lower-calibre pistols at sites designated by the Secretary of State. To ensure that public safety was not jeopardised, the new clause requires each physically disabled shooter to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to shoot at that designated site. They would also have to keep their weapons at that site.
We tabled the new clause to try to make the Bill fairer in some small respects. We have failed to persuade the Government to make it fairer in all respects for the thousands of innocent, honest shooters who will be severely disadvantaged, and the gun clubs that will receive inadequate compensation. We are giving the Government an opportunity to say that, although they intend to stick to the main thrust of the Bill, they accept that, if they impose the most draconian security precautions on a designated site, they will make it possible for a few hundred people—approved by the Secretary of State, licensed and given a certificate by chief constables and approved of by specialist shooting organizations—to continue to represent Great Britain at shooting events.
With similarly strict criteria, they could permit a few hundred disabled people, most of whom would be in wheelchairs, to go to a pistol club and fire pistols under strictly controlled conditions to help their rehabilitation.
If the Home Secretary says tonight that he cannot allow a new clause that would help the disabled, because he believes that it would increase risk and because he wants to prevent massacres such as Dunblane from happening again, in effect he would be saying that he can envisage circumstances in which a disabled shooter would get access to a club, smuggle out a .22 calibre pistol and then, from his wheelchair, carry out the sort of massacre that happened in Hungerford and Dunblane.
That would be the effect if the Home Secretary said, "I am sorry, I cannot allow the new clause, because it would be too big a risk and would undermine the principles of safety behind the Bill." That is what a disabled person would have to do if, as the Government claim, another massacre could be caused by accepting the new clauses.
I urge the Government to think carefully about the new clauses. I expect that the Home Secretary will not be able to accept them tonight, but I urge him—in all sincerity

and, after all, he has won all the other votes tonight—to accept these two simple new clauses. I hope that he will at least come back with similar proposals—no matter how draconian the security measures included—that would, at the last ditch, allow the British national shooting squad to continue and a few hundred disabled people to continue with their rehabilitation.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have tabled new clauses 3 and 4. However, a form of exemption for both categories could have been included in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, in which case I am not sure that the new Government would have been keen to overturn the exemptions in the Bill before us today.
As someone who is opposed to the ban, I have to say that the Bill, even with the new clauses, severely threatens British participation in shooting sports. I do not see where the new generation of people who are trained and experienced for many years will come from; that is an unhappy state of affairs. I wish to address the position of those who might be sympathetic to a ban, but who should consider what we will do with these two categories of people—those who might represent us at the Olympics or in the Commonwealth games, including those taking place in this country, and paraplegic and other disabled shooters.
I asked the Home Secretary on Second Reading whether he had completely ruled out using powers that he already has
to enable British competitors to participate in the games"—
the Manchester games—
and to have a period of training before doing so?
He replied:
I have not ruled that out altogether and if realistic representations are made to me, I shall think about the proposal. But I should require a high degree of convincing before going ahead with it."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
I cannot understand the logic of holding games in Manchester with participants in .22 shooting from every country in the Commonwealth, who will have trained beforehand, yet not allowing British competitors—the pool from which they will be drawn can already be identified—to train for that contest, even for a few days, unless the Home Secretary exercises his power.
When the time comes, Ministers will find it difficult to defend their position. The press clamour will no longer be for a ban as it was after Dunblane; it will be about what the Government are doing to our British sportsmen. The very newspapers that made such a fuss of saying that the Bill was the answer to Dunblane; which is a controversial contention, will scream at Ministers and ask why they are not giving our boys a fair chance. Ministers should prepare themselves for that. Most ordinary people would think that there was something illogical about the Government's position, even if they were mostly sympathetic to a ban.
I hope that the Home Secretary will consider further what he said to me on Second Reading and consider the new clauses, which set out sensible conditions that would make it reasonable for him to accept them, and find a way for our competitors to prepare for that competition in Manchester. It will take place within a few miles of his constituency, so he must be aware of the feelings that it will arouse. Clearly it would be illogical to make some


provision for British competitors taking part in other international competitions, whether held in this country or abroad. The illogicality will be so apparent when the Manchester games take place.
8.15 pm
I also hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the position of disabled competitors, who may be covered by new clause 3 if they take part in paraplegic games such as the Paralympics. We have a superb record in those competitions. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Paraplegic Shooting Association:
Shooting for the disabled was initiated in this country and is now recognised world wide. It would be ironic if Great Britain was the only country to be eliminated from International competitions because of the pressure of media coverage.
The letter requests that we consider
a special dispensation for our disabled pistol shooters to allow them to train at bona-fide clubs as unlike their able-bodied counterparts it is not simple…to go abroad for training purposes. The physical and financial difficulties which disabled people would encounter would 'sound the death knell' for shooters with a disability and end a long and highly successful tradition.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider that request.
I do not think that anyone seriously imagines that a disabled shooter in a wheelchair would be the cause of some future massacre. The arrangements would have to be secure enough to reassure everyone, including disabled shooters themselves, that provisions made for them were so well controlled that their facility could not be abused by someone else.
The Bill provides for exceptions and some people—in specific categories, such as veterinary surgeons and other people using guns for animal welfare—would be able to keep a handgun at home, so it would not be beyond the wit of Ministers and their advisers to find a way to help disabled people to continue to participate in a sport that does them so much good and brings this country so much honour.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in seeking to persuade the Home Secretary to accept our arguments. We have been round the course several times and the Home Secretary accepts that the only reason for a complete ban is public safety. Therefore, as we narrow the focus, it is incumbent on any Government who seek to impose such a ban to be satisfied at each point that the stringency of the ban remains necessary in the public interest.
The new clauses have focused the debate on two small and highly responsible groups under stringent conditions. The burden on the police to monitor handguns will be massively reduced by the 1997 Act and the blanket ban in the Bill. We are now down to suggestions that a small number of disabled shooters and our national competition shooters, including 100 in the national squad and 350 in the regional squads—let us say, 450 in all—who are all highly responsible people and traceable, should be able to use guns in designated areas.
I do not believe that the Home Secretary can claim that such a small number of handguns under such tightly controlled conditions represents a sufficient threat to

justify extending the blanket ban to the categories in the new clauses. If he is still minded to make that argument, I shall expand my case. After the Bill is enacted, a few, comparatively wealthy, shooters will go to train in France or Ireland. They may go further afield, but they will probably cross the Channel or the Irish sea to train. The Government seek to make a virtue of the principle of assisting the many, not the few, but the Bill will go against that principle.
We are talking only about a small number of disabled people and people who wish to train for high-quality, international competition. Those who wish to become really expert will be banished from our shores. The risk of their continuing to use handguns under highly restrictive conditions has to be balanced against the risks of an evilly intentioned person obtaining a handgun—we are only talking about .22 pistols—from some other source.
Earlier, I mentioned France because, as I have said in earlier debates, .22 pistols are freely available there. When I spoke in Monday's debate, I was aware that such weapons were generally freely available, but I had not yet spoken to someone who had walked around Calais or Le Touquet and seen just how remarkably easy it is to buy them.
I have been reprimanded by the Minister of State—who is rather apt to reprimand Conservative Members when we do not agree with him—although I hasten to add that I have not been reprimanded by the Home Secretary, who is always courteous and charming. Conservative Members are attempting to penetrate the Home Secretary's charm and get to his mind, thereby persuading him of our case. I must not go on too long, however, or I shall be counter-productive in that exercise.
The fact, however, is that an evilly intentioned person can obtain a .22 pistol by going to France and bringing one back. The Home Secretary cannot tell me that such a person is likely to be caught by customs at Folkestone, Portsmouth or any other port of entry, because it is not likely.
We are balancing a risk that we cannot protect against—because we have no power over the French, not that I should like to exercise power over the French on this matter, because I believe that the Bill goes too far—against a very minute risk in allowing highly responsible national competitors and disabled people, for whom the sport is very important, not only for their sense of sport but for their rehabilitation, to have limited access to .22 pistols.
I want simply to reinforce the argument that was carefully and cogently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, and invite the Home Secretary to think again carefully on the subject.

Mr. Colvin: I, too, should like to support new clause 3 and—like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—I am also guilty of having been reprimanded by the Minister of State.
I was reprimanded for criticising the cynicism of the Home Secretary in applauding Manchester's winning the Commonwealth games. I said that it seemed a bit unfair to applaud that victory, because, whereas overseas shooting teams will be welcomed in Manchester, our own shooters will be denied an opportunity to participate. I refused to withdraw that specific criticism of the Home Secretary.


I am glad to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity today to enable me to withdraw that criticism unreservedly—simply by agreeing to new clause 3.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has pointed out that new clause 3 is narrow and would be a minor change to the Bill. It is even more narrow, however, than hon. Members—other than the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—have described. He asked where shooters will come from to qualify for the 13 regional squads—comprising 350 pistol shooters—from which the national squad of 100 members is drawn. His question puts into much sharper focus the difficulty in which United Kingdom pistol shooters will find themselves.
As the Home Secretary has already admitted, the Bill will sound the death knell of a sport in which the United Kingdom excels and has been very successful. We may as well draw down the curtains on it. New clause 3 would merely provide a stay of sentence for people who have already qualified for the national squad and for those who are in the qualification pipeline.
It is worth noting that people who qualify for the national squad have already been in competition shooting for a very long time. Some of them entered the sport as young as 14 years old and worked their way up through the junior ranks of pistol shooters, to age 21, and eventually on to the national team.
New clause 3 would merely give the Home Secretary the power to enable such people to continue the progress that they are already making towards the national squad and, eventually and hopefully, continue the noble tradition of winning for the United Kingdom more gold, silver and bronze medals in competition shooting. I hope that the Home Secretary will give me a reason to withdraw my remarks about his cynicism.
New clause 4 applies all the arguments that we have already heard to an even narrower bunch of shooters: disabled shooters. I take very much to heart—as I hope the Committee will—the remarks made on behalf of British Paraplegic Shooting Association.
There is no doubt that pistol shooting is one of the very few sports in which everyone competes on equal terms—young and old, male and female, the able-bodied and the disabled. Disabled shooters often beat able-bodied shooters because they frequently shoot from a wheelchair, which gives them a degree of stability that may be denied to someone shooting from a standing position. The British Paraplegic Shooting Association has explained very clearly to the Secretary of State why their shooting should be preserved.
As hon. Members have already said, the sport commences at grassroots level and proceeds to Paralympic level. Paralympians train extremely hard at least four times a week, and every day in the run-up to the Paralympics, and shooting is very much their special sport. After the 1996 Paralympics, in Atlanta, the Paralympic committee removed two air weapons events and increased the number of live ammunition events, because competition in air weapons has reached such a high standard, and more competitive participants are needed.
Ministers would be very wise to grant special dispensation to that group of people. Moreover, even if Ministers are minded to refuse new clause 3, I hope that they will accept new clause 4.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On 11 June 1997, I spoke at some length in the House about the specific needs of disabled shooters. I also intervened in the speech of the Home Secretary to ask him about the special position of Bisley, which is a village in my constituency. The Home Secretary said:
I shall look at the subject again".—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
I speak in this debate to ask the Home Secretary whether he will accept the new clauses and, before the Bill goes to another place, re-examine the subject. I ask also whether he may be able to introduce a modified version of new clause 4 in another place.
As my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have stressed, we are speaking about a relatively small group of people—disabled shooters and those involved in the highest levels of competition—about whom the Labour party has always been particularly concerned. Labour has always been very proud, as they should be, of their support for sport and for the disabled.
It would therefore be somewhat surprising for Labour Members, in one of their very first acts in government, to hamper the disabled and damage a very important and successful sport. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect very carefully before he decides on legislation that would be so draconian that it would prevent any effective competition at the highest levels by British sportspeople and by disabled British sportspeople in the Paralympic, Commonwealth and Olympic games.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have already stressed that these are sports which Britain gave the world and at which we have done conspicuously well. Especially in respect of the Paralympics, it is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should say that it is beyond his ability to help the disabled.
On 11 June, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) sought to suggest that I and my colleagues who were talking about the disabled were in some way hiding our support for various amendments—support that we had always made quite clear—behind the cause of the disabled. I resent that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but he was here earlier.
I stress that many of us have been working hard for disabled sportspeople—not only those involved in shooting—for many years. We have every right to champion the cause of disabled shooters and the cause of those who have practised for many years.
8.30 pm
Many people in my constituency have been involved in shooting at the very highest level. They have cabinets full of trophies which they have won representing their country. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, many months and years of practice go into winning those trophies, and I suggest that the Home Secretary seriously reconsiders the matter. I hope that he will accept the new clauses, but, if he cannot go that far, I hope that he will at least confirm that he is prepared to reconsider before the Bill goes to another place.
In pursuance of his promise to me on 11 June, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the position of Bisley. Sadly, Britain has lost its historic standing in many sports, although we hope that we are regaining it in, for example, cricket at the moment. However, there is no doubt that Bisley is regarded worldwide as the pre-eminent centre of shooting, a sport in which we have an extremely successful record. It is not impossible for the Government to make exceptions, either by accepting the new clauses now or by accepting similar proposals in another place, and to allow competitive pistol shooting, and shooting for the disabled, to continue.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have high hopes that as the Home Secretary is answering this debate it means that the Government are taking the two new clauses seriously.

Mr. Maclean: He is a reasonable man.

Mr. Chope: He has proved on a number of occasions that he is a reasonable man, as my right hon. Friend says.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that it would be possible for pistol shooting competitions to be held within the confines of the Commonwealth games. If public safety can be secured by arrangements that enable pistol shooters from more than 50 Commonwealth countries to come to Manchester and use their pistols in competition, why cannot arrangements be made for British pistol shooters to practise their sport in a centre of excellence with public safety being secured at the same time?
To get to the bottom of the Government's argument, I tabled a question to find out what detailed arrangements were being planned by the Government in connection with the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002. I asked the Home Secretary
to place in the Library a draft of the authority and the conditions attached thereto which he intends to grant under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 in respect of competitors in pistol shooting events at the Commonwealth Games".
I am sorry to have to tell the House that the Minister of State declined to do so. In so doing, he said:
Any authority to be issued to competitors for the pistol shooting events…will be a matter for the Secretary of State",
which we know. He continued:
the Secretary of State can attach any conditions which he considers necessary to ensure that public safety or the peace is not endangered. It is … for the Secretary of State to decide the appropriate drafting and conditions".
We understand that, but if the Home Secretary can be so sure that it will be possible to make those necessary arrangements for the Manchester games, why can he not place in the Library a draft of those arrangements? I am not asking for the final version—only for a draft of how he thinks the arrangements will work in practice.
Fifty nations will be represented at the Commonwealth games, at which pistol shooting is the third most popular sport. People will attend from the UK, but also from parts within the UK, such as Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. What arrangements will be made to ensure public safety, given that that is the absolute which the Home Secretary is holding up to us? Has he thought through

how pubic safety will be secured in those circumstances? If so—I hope that he has—why will he not let us know what those detailed arrangements are? We could then compare the practicalities of arrangements proposed for the Commonwealth games with the proposals in new clauses 3 and 4.
I also received a disappointing reply from the Minister of State when I asked whether competitors from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be able to use pistols
in their ownership which are lawfully held overseas so that they can participate in the games on equal terms with nationals from other countries.
Again, it is a straightforward question, but the Minister of State responded:
The Government appreciate the need for the planning of the games to take place well in advance and we intend to discuss the matter with all interested parties. It is too early to grant section 5 authority at this stage. However, all competitors from the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, will be eligible to be considered nearer the time."—[Official Report, 16 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 3–4.]
I hope that they are not intended to be the weasel words that they might seem to those of a more sceptical disposition than I.
I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will make it possible for British competitors, who use and practise with pistols that are lawfully held overseas, to bring those pistols here and participate in the games on equal terms with nationals from other countries. If not, I despair. It raises the serious problem of whether this country will ever be able to command the support of other countries on the Olympic games or Commonwealth games committee if we are not able to guarantee the future of pistol shooting events.
Originally, we were not going to have pistol shooting in Manchester, but, after pressure was put on the Manchester organisers, it was agreed that there would be. It is such a popular sport in the Commonwealth games that any country that has no proper arrangements for it is unlikely to enjoy the support of other Commonwealth countries in seeking designation to host the Commonwealth games.

Mr. Colvin: Unlike me, my hon. Friend is a lawyer. We have been discussing the rights of minorities and I know that my hon. Friend has made a study of the European convention on human rights. I ask him, as I asked the Home Secretary on Second Reading, whether in his view people deprived of the liberty to shoot have the right to appeal to the European Court against this infringement of their civil rights.

Mr. Chope: I do not give any advice as a lawyer these days. Like me, the Home Secretary is a proud member of the Inner Temple, but we certainly do not give advice—at least not for free—in this House. However, I do know that members of the Christchurch gun club have high expectations of being able to take some of these arguments to the European Court of Human Rights. I do not know whether they will be successful, but it is an indication of their despair that they feel that they will be forced down that path.
New clause 4 deals with shooting for the disabled, which is a sport that was developed by our country and something of which we should be proud. I hope that the Government's sensitivity towards those least able to help


themselves will lead them to accept the new clause. What the disabled can achieve by pistol shooting differs greatly from what others can achieve. It is said by the Government, with some justification, that ordinary people involved in pistol shooting can transfer their activities to rifle, shotgun or clay pigeon shooting; for a disabled person, however, such a transfer is not possible because of the recoil and power of those larger guns. That is why pistol shooting for people in wheelchairs has become such a popular sport. Mr. Holdaway, who is a prominent member of the Christchurch gun club, writes that pistol shooting
is a sport almost anybody can compete in on equal terms. This is particularly true of pistol shooting as rifles and shotguns can have intimidating levels of recoil. Women can compete against men as can youngsters. A few disabled people with limited upper body strength may be unable to shoot, but being in a wheelchair is no disadvantage in many disciplines. .22 calibre events are especially suitable.
I hope that the Government will take the new clauses seriously. If they fail to do so, I have every confidence that the debate in another place will ensure that the new clauses are eventually put on the statute book.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): First, I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and to other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening that I take this matter very seriously indeed. It may be that we have come to different conclusions—I shall try to explain why that may be inevitable in this case—but I do not regard what we are doing here as a light matter. On Second Reading, I said that the House has
to be very careful before we use our power to prohibit actions that were previously lawful and involved no criminal intent. Simple disapproval can never be a ground alone for prohibition."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1164.]
I have repeated that statement, because it is applicable to today's debate and will be applicable to future debates. It is a principle to which I and the Government of which I am a member seek to work whenever we address the difficult questions of balancing the personal liberty of law-abiding people against wider issues of public safety.
My second preliminary remark is in answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) about the European convention on human rights, which is a matter that we have considered both in opposition and in government. It was raised initially—and somewhat ironically—by the former hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Nicholas Budgen, who could not normally get the word "European" out of his mouth without spitting about it. He had worked out that the European convention on human rights had a different—and in his view far more honourable—provenance than the treaty of Rome. It was, after all, a convention which had been developed by distinguished British lawyers, including the distinguished British lawyer who went on to become a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Mr. Budgen kept asking me during the course of the last Parliament whether shooters would be able to exercise their rights under the convention. The best advice that I have received is that neither the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 nor the Bill in any way conflicts with individuals' rights under the convention, but it is open to any British citizen to petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Later this year, we shall introduce a Bill to incorporate the European convention

into British law and I look forward to receiving support for that measure, not least from those who have spoken today about their rights under that convention.
I have thought carefully about this matter and I shall explain why I am not persuaded to grant the exception that is asked for. While listening to the arguments, I was struck by the fact that the main argument in favour of the exception—which would extend a right to carry on practising to the existing national squad and the 13 regional squads mentioned by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—was based on another exception that I have already granted. That is my difficulty. I have listened carefully to the arguments and it is for that reason that I announced on Second Reading that we would be ready to use the section 5 powers under the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that the shooting competitions at the Commonwealth games could go ahead. I believe that we were right to do so, even though it creates a patent anomaly, as was said on Second Reading. It is an anomaly, but we should be able to arrive at conditions which assure public safety and ensure that those games can go ahead.
That exception having been made, it is now suggested that I must make another exception—that British shooters should be allowed to train before that competition so that they can compete. The problem with new clause 3 is that it does not properly define which members would be members of national squads.
The competition will be in five years' time. If there were to be a real prospect of British shooters being able to participate in that competition, the next argument would be, logically, that we should ensure that there is a through-put of people who would be available in five years' time to compete. The next question would be why we are excluding some people and not others. That is one reason why I am not persuaded of the case for the new clause.
8.45 pm
Given the shooting competitions that will take place at the Commonwealth games and under the aegis of the Olympic games and the Paralympic games, it is striking—and I think not properly appreciated by hon. Members or the public—that, even after the Bill is passed, British residents will be able to train and compete in the vast majority of Commonwealth games and Olympic shooting disciplines.
To listen to the debate and the remarks of, for example, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border, one might be forgiven for believing that, in his words, the sport "will be destroyed." Yes, the sport of target shooting with pistols will end as a result of the Bill's passage. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant, he is right, but the implication of some of the less precise remarks that have been made is that shooting as a sport will be destroyed by the Bill. It will not.
Quite a lot of British people, and many Labour Members, are worried about public safety. The Bill and the 1997 Act will have the effect of removing 200,000 handguns from circulation, but that will leave at least another 200,000 rifles and high-powered air weapons. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may say that that means that there remains a public safety issue.
In any case, those 200,000 rifles and high-powered air weapons will exist and most of them are held not to carry out any occupational function, such as in agriculture,


but for sporting purposes. I well understand that some weapons are held for occupational reasons, but most are held for sporting purposes. In addition, there are certificates relating to 1.3 million shotguns. So although the Bill will eliminate the holding of pistols in general civilian use, it will not eliminate firearms.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is really addressing the argument, but it must be apparent to—or at least dawning on—him that the argument is a question not of an anomaly, but of a judgment. It is a question of deciding where to draw the line and what is necessary for the protection of public safety.
We are discussing a very small number of pistols. We had a debate about single-shot pistols, which I invite the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind, because one appreciates that a multi-shot pistol is more dangerous, but we are trying to find a way of keeping open a sport practised by legitimate sportsmen under highly controlled conditions. He is making the case against his existing judgment, by pointing out that there are 200,000 rifles and 1.3 million shotguns, which are as lethal as—probably rather more lethal than—these pistols, quite apart from the ease of getting them from France and the existence of illegal ones. I am fascinated to know how the right hon. Gentleman convinces himself.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it comes down to a judgment of where to draw the line. A rifle may be more powerful than a pistol. Lord Cullen and the former Government were of the view that a pistol is more dangerous because it is more easily concealed; and a multi-shot pistol can be fired more rapidly than the rifles which, these days, are lawfully certified. To those who say that we have some sort of ideological fixation against the use of firearms, I say: look at the facts. There will still be 1.5 million lawfully licensed firearms in this country after the passage of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends might want to criticise me for allowing that to continue, but it hardly argues for a fixation on our part.
I want to set out the facts about the number of competitions in which British residents will still be able to compete even after the passage of the Bill. There are 15 shooting competitions in the Olympics. British participation will be adversely affected by the Bill in respect of just three of them. British sportsmen and women will still be able to compete in 12 competitions, involving air rifles and pistols, ordinary rifles and shotguns for clay pigeon shooting.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the fact that shooting was one of the original disciplines in the Olympics, and he was right about that. But it is also interesting to note that of all the Olympic sports, shooting is the only one for which the number of events that have been discontinued greatly outnumbers the ones currently held. The history of these events is a history of changing perceptions of public safety.
There was a time when there was a competition in the Olympics with duelling pistols. I suspect that as duelling went out of fashion so it was felt by the organisers of the Olympics that such a competition might offend some more sensitive members of the public. There was also a

competition for miniature rifles—highly dangerous weapons. I know that animal rights are much on the minds of my hon. Friends at the moment. There used to be a competition of live pigeon shooting. That, too, has been abandoned by the Olympics. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may have some experience of trying to shoot live pigeons; he suggests that trying to obtain a score at all may have been problematic.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: One of the themes of this interesting debate has been that it is not about the moral high ground: it is about the practical consequences for public safety. Yet here is the right hon. Gentleman lecturing the Committee—I fully understand his point—on the very moral issues which we have been told time and again are not the motivating force behind the legislation. Is there not some confusion here?

Mr. Straw: The word "moral" has not passed my lips. Where to draw the line is a practical, not a moral issue. For me, the only moral issue is securing the right balance between people's right to engage in a sport and the need for public safety.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the arrangements that he proposes there will be no legal bar to British competitors taking part in the Manchester Commonwealth games? If so, will he make some allowance for those competitors to arrive at the competition in a reasonable state of preparedness—even if only gained over the few weeks before the games?

Mr. Straw: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's points. I hope that he will accept my arguments. I have thought about this a great deal, especially since it was raised in the House last week. In my judgment it will not be possible to allow an exemption which starts now and runs until 2002. As I said, because the exemption would have to run to 2002, I or any holder of my office would be under pressure to increase the number of people who might funnel their way through to become members of a national squad. If the games were to be held tomorrow, it would be a different matter, but we are speaking about an event five years away.
If there is a British team that wishes to participate in the Commonwealth games in 2002, despite the fact that there will be no possibility of practice between now and then, it will be a matter for the holder of my office to ensure that the same arrangements for training apply to them as apply to any other team participating in the Commonwealth games. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said. Should I still hold this fine office in 2002—I will almost have beaten the record for any holder over the past 200 years—I shall bear his comments in mind.
I know that time is pressing, but important points have been raised and I want to answer them. With regard to the Paralympics, before the hon. Member for Romsey raised the matter, I was briefed to the effect that of a total of 15 events, British teams will be ruled out of just two events. The hon. Gentleman gave more up-to-date information. I understand that the Paralympic committee has removed two air weapon events and replaced them with live firing events.
That makes my point as much as the hon. Gentleman's, and shows that within the ambit of shooting competitions it is possible for the kind of events to be changed,


sometimes in response to public fashion and public pressure. I suggest that if participation by British residents in .22 live-firing competition were banned it might be possible to persuade the Paralympics to move into other events.
On the Commonwealth games, the news is even better than that in respect of the Olympics and the Paralympics. There are 28 separate shooting competitions in the Commonwealth games. Of those, British residents will be able to train and compete in 21 disciplines for rifles, air rifles, pistols and shotguns. It is five years before the Commonwealth games take place. I expect that several of the people who have represented this country so finely in pistol competitions will shift their discipline to one of the other four disciplines—rifles, air rifles, pistols and shotguns.
The passage of the Bill will mean that British participants are unable to compete in six pistol competitions. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is aware, the 1997 Act for which he was responsible had the effect of rendering British participation in one Commonwealth games event impossible—that was for .32 centrefire pistols.
I have dealt with one of the claims made about the Bill, which is that it would lead to British residents being unable to train and compete in shooting disciplines. I think that I have shown that, notwithstanding the Bill, British residents will still be able to train and compete in the vast majority of events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
The second charge that has been made is that we would be unable to host the Commonwealth games in 2002, or the Olympics or Paralympics at some time in the future. I dealt with the matter of the Commonwealth games when I spoke in the House on Second Reading last Wednesday. I or my successor will be able to make an authorisation, subject to detailed practical conditions, under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968.
The hon. Member for Christchurch asked why my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has not been able to put in the Library of the House the detailed conditions. That is because we have not got them, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out as far as possible the criteria that we would take into account.
With regard to the Olympics and the Paralympics, I am assured that the passage of the Bill would not prevent our hosting either of those games at some time in the future, if we were able to win that competition.
Either of the new clauses is capable of producing loopholes in the control of firearms. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced. Hon. Members who argued in favour of the new clauses will accept that I have taken their case seriously and have tried to deal with it. I am sorry to tell them, however, that, having weighed the arguments in the balance, I must ask the House to reject both new clauses.

Mr. Maclean: We have listened carefully to the Home Secretary tonight, and the difference between him and the Minister of State is obvious. When the Minister does not have a logical argument, he reverts to attacking the Opposition and to much bluff and bluster. When the Home Secretary does not have a logical argument, he reverts to ladling out the charm. The Home Secretary

dispensed charm by the bucketful in his reply tonight, which leads me to conclude that he does not have a very strong argument.
9 pm
The Home Secretary is correct to say that there is a delicate balance to be struck between public safety and individual liberty. We all accept that fact. The Committee may be under the impression—perhaps Labour Back Benchers believe it—that the Home Secretary has decided that, in the interests of public safety, pistol shooting will never occur again in this country.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Hear, hear.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is wrong. The Home Secretary has exercised his judgment and decided that pistol shooting will be allowed, under strictly controlled conditions, in this country at the Commonwealth games and that competitors from 60 foreign countries will participate. British shooters will not be able to train and shall not participate. It is not a matter of public safety. The Home Secretary cannot base his opposition to the new clause on concern about public safety. He cannot claim that public safety is paramount and absolute and say—in the nicest possible way—that he therefore cannot accept the new clause.
The Home Secretary has decided to exercise his judgment—which I think is correct—to permit shooting events to be held at the Commonwealth games. The Opposition are asking the Home Secretary not to make another exception and depart from his judgment, but to follow the same principles that he has applied in deciding to permit shooting at the Commonwealth games and allow it to take place at a designated site, such as Bisley. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) put the argument beautifully and succinctly. He said that if public safety can be secured for the shooters from 60 countries at Manchester, why can it not be allowed at a designated, secure, national site, such as Bisley, where the Home Secretary could apply the same strict section 5 guidelines? I expect the criteria that he will publish in due course to be quite draconian in order to ensure public safety, and the Opposition will accept it.
The Opposition have no option but to press new clause 3 to a Division today. The Home Secretary has been hoist by his own petard—no wonder he wants to shoot some pigeons, because they have dropped some nasty things on him—in the logic that he has tried to apply today. The Home Secretary has exercised his judgment and he will allow pistol shooting to take place in Britain in a few years. In this new clause, we ask him to exercise the same judgment and permit it to take place under the same secure conditions for British as for foreign shooters.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 328.

Division No. 35]
[9.2 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard (jShef'ld Hallam)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Atkinson, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Beith, Rt Hon A J






Bercow, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Crispin
Key, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkwood, Archy


Brady, Graham
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mackinlay, Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Mactaggart, Fiona


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Malins, Humfrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maples, John



Marek, Dr John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Opik, Lembit


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Page, Richard



Paice, James


Day, Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rendel, David


Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Flight, Howard
Ruffley, David


Forth, Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fox, Dr Liam
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Harvey, Nick



Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Townend, John


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyler, Paul


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wallace, James


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann





Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willis, Phil



Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Simon Burns and



Mr. Tim Boswell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Crausby, David


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Austin, John



Banks, Tony
Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare


Barron, Kevin
Dafis, Cynog


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Ms Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobbin, Jim


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Donohoe, Brian H


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Robert
Dowd, Jim


Borrow, David
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Efford, Clive


Brand, Dr Peter
Ellman, Ms LouiseEtherington. Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Fitzpatrick, Jim



Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Ms Caroline


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Ms Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Foster. Michael John (Worcester)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grant, Bernie



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Hancock, Mike


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)
Heath, David (Somerton)



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Hepburn, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin







Hill, Keith
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hinchliffe, David
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Home Robertson, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hope, Philip
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Meale, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Merron, Ms Gillian


Howells, Dr Kim
Michael, Alun


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Miller, Andrew



Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Brian
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Illsley, Eric
Morley, Elliot


Ingram, Adam
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Mountford, Ms Kali


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pollard, Kerry


Kemp, Fraser
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kingham, Tessa
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rogers, Allan


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Love, Andy
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAllion, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


McCabe, Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McNulty, Tony



MacShane, Denis
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Soley, Clive
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Spellar, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Watts, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Webb, Steven


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
White, Brian


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Alan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Swinney, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wise, Audrey


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wyatt, Derek


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As you know, and as the Government know, we could force new clause 4 to a vote. The Opposition wish to make it absolutely clear that we support the principle and the intention behind the new clause, but, as it is clear that the Government are unwilling to listen, and as they have voted down new clause 3, we shall not take up the time of the House with an unnecessary Division—[Interruption.] Unless Government Members tempt us, and make us wish to do so, we shall not take time away from Third Reading. However, the Opposition will return to the important content of new clause 4 in another place.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My party's manifesto made a clear commitment to a free vote on a total ban on handguns. We have delivered on that commitment, and a free vote on Second Reading produced a resounding majority of 203 in favour of an extension to the ban. That is a crystal clear message from the House. We want the ban on small-calibre pistols to be introduced well before the end of the year and I hope that that will prove possible.
No point of principle or of detail on this short Bill has not been given a full airing on Second Reading and in subsequent debates on amendments and new clauses. We have made the case, we have won the argument and there can be no doubt of our intensions. We have dealt with the unfinished business that remained after the previous Government failed to allow a free vote on a complete ban on handguns. The Bill should now go to the other place for a swift passage into law. I believe that that is not only the will of the vast majority of hon. Members, but it has


the public's support as shown in the general election and through expressions of public opinion before and since. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard: We made our attitude to the Bill clear on Second Reading, and nothing that the Government said then or in Committee has led us to revise it. The Bill is a petty and vindictive measure, and its proposals are unnecessary, unfair and expensive.
As I said on 11 June, we believe that the Government must always present a clear justification whenever they propose to intervene in the otherwise lawful habits of law-abiding citizens. The principle of individual liberties should dictate that Governments should always take into account the views of minorities and minority interests. As the Bill has gone through its stages in the House, the Government have done neither. Indeed, Ministers have applied a steamroller approach to any reasoned arguments or suggestions put by right hon. and hon. Members.
The case put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others that provision should be made to enable Olympic and Commonwealth competitors to compete has gone unanswered. The case put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others that due consideration should be given to disabled shooters has gone unanswered. The Government's only response has been that the Bill is in the interests of public safety, but they have not produced any conclusive evidence to justify that view.
The proposal to ban the controlled and limited use of .22 target pistols is unnecessary. The controls that we put in place earlier this year and which have yet to be implemented would have ensured that the public were protected. They would allow not unrestricted use of .22 calibre pistols but only limited use in clubs that police were satisfied met the highest security criteria. The owners of those weapons would even be prohibited from taking them out of a club. The police would have to be alerted as a matter of routine whenever a .22 pistol was removed from a club, be it for competition or repair.
The Government want to go further. They argue that a total ban is a logical extension of the 1997 Act. The Minister of State said that the difference is not one of principle. But the fact is that the principle and motivation for a total ban are different from our proposals. Our guiding principle was to protect the public. We felt that we could do that without obliterating a long-established sport invented by Britain, enjoyed by many and at which we do well. The Government do not share that principle. That is why the Bill is unfair.
The 1997 Act would have allowed British citizens to continue to represent their country on the international stage in .22 target pistol events recognised by the Olympic committee. Over the past 10 years, Britain has won 23 medals in Commonwealth .22 competitions. The Bill will make us virtually unique, as our citizens will no longer be able to take part in international competitions.
The 1997 Act would also have allowed disabled people to continue to participate in a sport which they not only enjoy, but which the British Paraplegic Shooting Association has said is useful as
a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport.

It believes that it provides disabled people
with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world.
We tried to introduce an element of fairness into the Bill in new clauses 3 and 4. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) explained, the new clauses would have allowed national competition shooters recognised by the national bodies that select for international competitions to continue to train at centres designated by the Home Secretary. Our proposal for designated centres would have enabled Britain to continue to compete in a major Olympic sport.
We also proposed, in new clause 4, that physically disabled shooters be exempt from the total ban and be allowed to continue their sport at centres designated by the Home Secretary, and, indeed, to continue to represent their country at international competitions. The Government's decision to oppose the new clause will be greeted with much sadness by law-abiding disabled shooters who pose no threat to the public.
The Bill is also expensive. I said on Second Reading that Opposition Members would not begrudge the money if the consequences would really lead to increased protection for the public and if the Government could provide a clear justification for a total ban on handguns. They have not even begun to do so. They have calculated that the cost of compensating the owners of .22 handguns for the loss of their weapons and accessories would run to more than £30 million. Ministers have refused to tell us where the Government intend to find the money. Which Home Office budget will suffer? Will spending on closed circuit television or the police be sacrificed to compensate law-abiding owners of low-calibre handguns? Moreover, as we have heard today, the Government's estimates do not tell the whole story. The Bill goes much further than the 1997 Act: as has already been acknowledged, it would kill off pistol shooting.
During the passage of the Bill that became the 1997 Act, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of the ban on higher-calibre guns. An important justification for that view was the fact that shooters of high-calibre pistols could convert to .22s and continue to enjoy their sport. Under this Bill, that option would be denied to them, and many gun clubs would be made unviable. Associations that are—in the main—non profit-making would have to close and their owners or trustees could he faced with heavy liabilities.
I give the example of the 10th battalion of the Suffolk Home Guard rifle and pistol club, founded when the Government stood the home guard down but instructed it to establish ranges to which the public were to be admitted. The battalion did so, on rented land. It built a clubhouse and raised money by its own efforts. In February 1996, just a few weeks before the tragedy of Dunblane, it bought the land. It managed that with the help of money from the Sports Council, the local district council and the National Rifle Association. The land is owned subject to covenant, so it can be used only as a shooting range. A £15,900 grant from the Sports Council is subject to the condition that the club should continue to function for 10 years. Then there is the matter of a loan of £6,000. None of that is under the control of the trustees of the club, yet each of the four trustees will be held personally liable for a quarter of any debts on the winding up of the club.
The Opposition believe that, given the extent of the Bill and its departure from the principles of the 1997 Act, the issue of compensation should be revisited. Naturally, we hope that as many clubs as possible will be able to survive, but clubs that are forced to close as a result of the circumstances created by the total ban on handguns should be compensated.
The Government have completely failed to justify the need for the Bill, which clearly interferes with the liberty of thousands of law-abiding individuals. In their attempts to give reasons for the Bill, Ministers have rarely ventured beyond soundbites. The Bill is an example of the Government's weakness for gesture politics. It is unnecessary and unfair, and that is why we will oppose it.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this important debate.
It is a tradition of the House that maiden speeches should be fairly uncontroversial, and I respect that tradition, although I am not sure that it is possible to abide by it completely in a debate such as this. Not only is the tradition of argument and debate in the House honourable in itself, but I follow a long line of Warrington Members who were certainly not afraid to speak their minds.
The House will know that I have the honour of succeeding Doug Hoyle. Doug was an excellent Member of Parliament, first for Warrington and then for the new seat of Warrington, North. He was extremely active, extremely able and very well liked by his constituents, to whom he was universally known by his first name long before such things became fashionable at Cabinet level. He was also a great supporter of Warrington rugby league football club and ended his career with the supporters singing "There is only one Dougie Hoyle" around the ground.
Doug Hoyle was robust in the defence of his constituency. In his first speech in the House as the Member for Warrington, North, he was involved in what I think in these days of uncontroversial politics would be described as an interesting exchange of views with the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Tebbit. No doubt they will continue the conversation elsewhere.
As I have said, Doug Hoyle followed a long Warrington tradition. I have looked at the maiden speeches of my predecessors and they make it clear that they certainly did not shy away from saying what they thought. My predecessors included Tom Williams and, of course, Edith Summerskill who was the first woman to represent a Warrington constituency and whom no one could describe as a shrinking violet.
To read those speeches is to realise how much has changed—and how little. The language may be different, but the preoccupations of my predecessors are shared by many of us today. They spoke of a need for better housing, for more national health service beds and, in one case, even of the need to preserve water supplies. Perhaps that is a salutary reminder to us all and especially to my hon. Friends of how much work still needs to be done. What comes through most of all from those speeches is a burning hatred of injustice and a desire to represent the constituency well. It is a privilege to follow in their footsteps.
I confess that I speak with some relief because for my first few weeks in the House I became uncertain about whether I would ever be able to speak in the House at all. I did not receive copies of the Labour whip and I began to wonder what dreadful breach of the disciplinary code I had managed to commit before I got here. I carefully scrutinised my election address and reviewed my whole campaign, and I can honestly say, unlike some hon. Members, that the word "socialism" did not get past my agent's eagle eye.
After consulting the Millbank computer, I think that it was probably a mistake to allow in my office a poster that stated, "Join dangly earrings for Labour" after a certain dress code appeared in The Guardian. My most heinous offence was probably committed on a very wet day in Warrington when my campaign team, having been soaked to the skin four times, ended the evening completely drenched and with their umbrellas turned inside out, walking along a Warrington street and singing, "Always look on the bright side of life." Therefore, I plead guilty to enjoying the election campaign. I can only say in mitigation that what seems to outsiders to be frivolity is to Warringtonians a demonstration of resistance.
In my constituency, people have demonstrated time and again their ability to bounce back and even to recover from tragedy. The people of Warrington are among the friendliest, most welcoming people that one could encounter. We brew excellent beer at Burtonwood, and people take part in a wide range of charitable and leisure pursuits, which include the little-known feat of recently breaking the world line dancing record.
Although many of our traditional industries have disappeared, people have fought back to attract new jobs based on the excellent skills of our work force, our superb industrial sites and our communications facilities, which are second to none. Most of all, when Warrington was visited by the appalling tragedy of the Warrington bombing its people responded not with hatred and bitterness but with a movement to promote peace and reconciliation. There is no better measure of the character of my constituents than that. They are people whom any hon. Member would be proud to represent.
Pride in one's constituency is not enough. The people of Warrington, North sent me here not just to say nice things about them, pleasurable though that may be, but to make changes. Time and again during the election campaign, people said to me that one of the things that most worried them was the gun culture and the private ownership of handguns. I appreciate the points that have been made by hon. Members who say that, in passing the Bill, we are restricting the rights of many law-abiding gun owners and are interfering with their liberty to practise their sport. Of course we are, but we restrict people's individual liberties on many occasions when we believe that it is for the greater public good. We do not allow people to drive on whichever side of the road they like or to build wherever they like. How much more important, then, is it to consider that possibility when we deal with guns?
I am convinced by the arguments, particularly that relating to .22 pistols, because those weapons are small, lethal and deadly. They are the weapons that killed Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin. I am convinced also because no system of regulation and control, however draconian, can ever be 100 per cent. foolproof and if we allow these weapons to remain in private hands, it will be only a


matter of time before somehow, somewhere they fall into the wrong hands. As has been said many times in the House, but it bears repeating, the massacres at Hungerford and at Dunblane were carried out with legally held weapons. I am convinced, too, by the correlation shown in the Home Office statistics between the legal ownership of handguns and the number of firearm homicides. That has led me to believe sincerely that the more of these weapons we take out of circulation, the better it will be.
I said earlier that I represent a constituency which knows about senseless and random violence. It is because of that that we sympathise with the people who have suffered elsewhere from our failure to control firearms. The time has come to take another step. The onus is on the people who would keep these weapons to make their case. I do not believe that I have heard that case made convincingly tonight because the right to practise a sport always has to come second to the right to protect life. I say that sincerely not just as an hon. Member, but as the mother of a young child, and I believe that I speak for many more mothers of young children. My son was eight years old this week. The best present that we could give him and his generation is to start to control the gun culture in which they are growing up. The Bill is a step on the road to that and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Hancock: This debate has been interesting for a number of reasons, not least the spawning of such memorable and impressive maiden speeches. The House has been privileged to hear yet another tonight from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is to be congratulated not only on talking so eloquently about her constituency and predecessors, but on the fine way in which she demonstrated her support for the Bill. I offer her my heartiest congratulations on that speech and my best wishes for her time in the House.
I thought that it was a little sad and slightly shabby of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to talk in the way he did about the Bill. He suggested that the Bill had been steamrollered through. I have sat through most of the discussions on it. I have yet to think of a single Member on the Opposition or Government Benches who wanted to speak and was denied the opportunity on Second Reading, in Committee or indeed, I expect, on Third Reading, so to suggest that the Bill has been steamrollered through is an exaggeration.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe forgot to mention the part that he played in nursing the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 through the House, when he denied hon. Members the opportunity of a free vote, which would have brought into being the very thing that we are discussing tonight. Had there been a free vote on that occasion, we would not have sat through these proceedings in the past week or so. There would now have been a law, the compensation would have been dealt with and gun owners, clubs and everyone else would have been well aware of what was going to happen. There cannot be anyone in the country who, after the Dunblane massacre, seriously believed that there would not be significant changes.
It was also obvious to everyone—except, perhaps, some Conservative Members—that nothing short of a total ban would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of

British people. To satisfy the undoubted public demand for Parliament to take action, innocent people have to suffer—not innocent young children being denied the opportunity to grow up, but gun owners and sportsmen being denied the opportunity to pursue a sport. Yet it is not a sport which cannot change and adapt so that those sportsmen can fire other weapons; they are being denied the opportunity to fire specific guns.
Time and again, the Home Secretary and the Minister have demonstrated conclusively that there is an element of versatility not only among those who want to shoot, but among the organisations that stage events for shooters. The Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and the national championships have changed many times to take account of changes in gun fashion and the sort of events in which people want to participate.
The Bill is not the end of participation in shooting sports. It is not the end for those who, unfortunately, are disabled and who have chosen shooting as part of their therapy to help them gain their true potential. There will be opportunities for them to adapt and to take on other shooting pursuits, if that is what they want. It is not the end of the world. It will not stop this country staging the Commonwealth games in Manchester. It will not prevent us from making a bid for the Olympic games. Over the past couple of weeks, the Home Secretary, the Minister and many other hon. Members have demonstrated beyond refute that those events will be staged and that the United Kingdom will continue to attract them.
The House has overwhelmingly responded to what the public demanded after Dunblane, and has done so mindful of the consequences. No one has hidden behind the consequences; indeed, most of us accept the consequences. We feel desperately sorry for those who will be disadvantaged by the Bill, but it was inevitable that action would be taken and that people would suffer. I do not think that anyone who has spoken in favour of the Bill has gloated about it—most people are sad that law-abiding citizens will not be able to continue with a pursuit that many of them have followed for many years. However, it was an inevitable consequence and, from time to time, the House must accept that it is the right price to pay to provide the sort of legislation that the country needs.
There is no place to hide on this issue. Certainly, the Home Secretary has not tried to hide. The Minister has tried, to the best of his ability, to answer every intervention from those who criticise the Bill. I am delighted to say that, like the Minister, I speak on behalf of my colleagues in saying that there will be a free vote tonight—a free vote expressed by democratically elected Members of Parliament, just a few weeks after the general election.
Conservative Members showed cynical contempt for the House and the election when they suggested that the Bill would be given a rough ride and possibly overturned in the other place. I hope that that will not happen. If it did, it would be a total injustice in view of the result of the election on 1 May. It is obvious that many people who voted knew that a change of Government would mean tougher gun laws. I do not believe that there is a peer of the realm who could claim that he was not aware of that inevitability.
For Conservative Members to threaten that their colleagues in the other place might ambush and overturn the Bill shows a cynical disregard for the democratic


processes. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members take offence at that, but at least two of them said that that would happen. I am passionately in favour of the Bill and I am disappointed that they should take that attitude. I hope that at the end of the debate we give the Bill an overwhelming vote of support and that our colleagues in the other place will take note of that and act accordingly.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am absolutely delighted that we are having the Third Reading of the Bill and that we will vote to abolish handguns. I remember, not long ago, meeting John Crozier, a father who lost a child at Dunblane, and I have met other folk from Dunblane. It was one of the saddest and most tragic experiences of my life. I remember the feeling in Scotland when the Dunblane disaster happened. The House should not forget our responsibility to those children, and we should act to abolish handguns. We should also ensure that criminals and people who have said that they will go underground and continue to shoot will be punished as severely as possible.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his place tonight. I hope that he will dissociate himself from the remarks made by his party's candidate in my constituency during the election. The candidate said that I did not vote to ban handguns in Scotland. I voted to ban handguns in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. I say emphatically that no one can say that I am not determined in my opposition to handguns and my support for their abolition.
Since the last time I spoke on the issue, I, like many hon. Members, have been vilified for not supporting the gun lobby. I have seen an article put out by the field sports supporters that says that they should get rid of Tommy Graham, because I had a majority of only 1,700. They had a big poster saying, "Get shot of him." That is a tragic and savage thing to say about anyone in the current climate, because it almost encourages terrorism. I tell those people that I am back with an 8,000 majority and I am as determined as anyone to see the end of handguns in people's pockets.
I have heard arguments tonight about sport. Every man and woman in the country should sacrifice something to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened in Dunblane and in other parts of the world. The Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that there are no guns in the hands of fools, vagabonds and criminals. We should take the guns out of circulation and destroy them. The Bill will achieve that.
People have talked about medals—gold, silver and bronze. What sort of medal has been given to the kids who died at Dunblane? There is no medal for them. I hope that there is a place in heaven for all of them—I am sure there will be. Folk such as Tom Hamilton have denied the pleasure of the sport to people. I am not interested in gold medals.
Do not give me the patter that I have heard tonight about the disabled. The previous Government had opportunities to support the disabled. They rejected those opportunities, so the Tories should not weep tonight. I have been a defender of the rights of the disabled for years and years and will continue to be. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is right to say that

disabled folk will be able to take up some other sports or some other form of shooting. The argument about the disabled does not wash with me and the rest of the country.
The nation has suffered terribly and tragically over Dunblane, but we can never suffer the way that the families involved have suffered—not in a million years. We must listen to the people of Britain who have told us that they want rid of the guns. They do not want any more Dunblanes, and they do not want the Tommy Hamiltons of this world to have access to guns. Today, I will be proud to walk into the Lobby to vote against what the Opposition are trying to force on us. The public do not want what the Opposition are proposing, because they do not want anyone to have a handgun.
I have never heard such a fine maiden speech as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). It was one of the finest maiden speeches ever made in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I were saying that we have never heard such a beautiful speech; it was so well made. I hope that she was absolutely right and that the House will give her son, and all the other children in the United Kingdom, the biggest birthday present ever. I congratulate her from the bottom of my heart on her superb speech and its great ending. Let us pass the Bill tonight with a thumping majority.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has been elected to the House with a hard act to follow, because Doug Hoyle was a very effective and popular hon. Member. He was also the winner of a celebrated by-election, in which Lord Jenkins had difficulties not only of pronunciation but with Doug Hoyle. She obviously follows very much in the Doug Hoyle tradition.
The hon. Lady also has courage, because she told a joke about the Millbank computer. She was fortunate that the Minister without Portfolio had left the Chamber by that time. None the less, I applaud her courage in telling such a joke. More to the point, she spoke very effectively and with great knowledge and commitment to her constituency. She also spoke without notes. In our own maiden speeches, many hon. Members probably relied on the notes that we had copiously copied down. She had the poise and confidence not to do so. It was a very effective speech, and I look forward to hearing many more speeches by her.
The shadow Home Secretary described the Bill as petty and vindictive, and he said that it had been steamrollered through the House. He was wrong on all counts. The Bill is not petty, because it deals with a subject of great and substantial importance. It is also not vindictive, and I do not think that anyone could argue that it has been proposed in a vindictive manner. The attitude of Ministers has been one of more in sorrow than in anger, and one of deep responsibility and regret that such action must be taken. They have shown public responsibility in the manner in which the Bill was introduced.
As for steamrollering the Bill through the House, the shadow Home Secretary seems to be suffering from a short memory as well as a deficiency of votes in the Tory leadership contest. He was well known for steamrollering


legislation, particularly earlier in the year, when he imposed a three-line Whip on the previous Government's Bill dealing with the very same issue and refused to allow a free vote—a vote of conscience—on a total ban on handguns. He now seems to be in a particularly poor position to complain about anyone else steamrollering.
As hon. Members have said, the time allowed for debate has been adequate. I do not think that any hon. Member has felt constrained in their remarks, and the shadow Home Secretary's charge is unfair. Given that I do not have many complimentary remarks to make about the Government's entire range of legislation, I should say that I very much welcome their move to fulfil an election commitment that was shared both by the new Labour party and by the Scottish National party.
The Bill is much more logical and complete than the earlier legislation proposed by the Conservative Administration. The loophole, illogicality and irrationality of allowing .22 weapons to continue to be used, albeit in gun clubs, but banning every other type of handgun was never satisfactorily dealt with. As hon. Members have said, on many occasions .22 weapons have proved themselves as dangerous and deadly as handguns of a higher calibre. That was the type of weapon used to kill Bobby Kennedy and in the attempt on the life of President Reagan. In the United States, such weapons are often referred to as "Saturday night specials".
The Cullen report stated:
In terms of pure precision the .22 calibre was capable of inherent accuracy beyond the skill of the shooter. Whether high accuracy is obtained depends on the quality of the particular gun, the quality of the ammunition and the skills of the shooter. The .22 rimfire represented the highest precision cartridge which was available. It was highly evolved.
Lord Cullen could not see the case for separating the .22 from higher-calibre weapons; nor has anyone effectively made that case throughout the controversy surrounding the banning of handguns. It was on that illogicality that the previous legislation failed the test and failed the challenge of Dunblane and, indeed, of Hungerford.
I remind the House of the gun lobby's own judgment on the weaknesses of the storage proposal in the previous legislation. In its evidence to Lord Cullen, the British Shooting Sports Council said:
No matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his gun to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage.
The BSSC was arguing against club storage at that stage. It felt that that was what it had to resist because it believed that Cullen would move to club storage. However, the logic of the argument does not depend on the circumstances in which it is being argued, and the argument against building caches of guns in gun clubs is the same, regardless of the legislation before us. That is the reason why we should move forward and should ask. the many decent, law-abiding gun owners to sacrifice one part of their leisure time activities for the greater good of society as a whole.
We have heard a great deal about the Commonwealth and Olympic games. I know that the Home Secretary has in all good faith said that those games can still take place

in the United Kingdom, but I would rather see deployed the argument that it is perhaps time—or past time—that we should be telling the Olympic Games Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation that handgun competitions do not have a place in an international athletic and sporting competition, that many tens of millions of children across the world look to these competitions and their participants, and that such competitions perhaps reinforce the gun culture about which many of complain so often. Perhaps the argument against such events taking place at the Commonwealth and Olympic games should now be articulated—we should move on.
I will be supporting the Bill, as will the Scottish National party. I wish it well in the remainder of its proceedings in another place. It would be incredible if it were ambushed and bushwhacked there. That would be a rank defiance of the clearly expressed public opinion. To use a phrase from another debate, it is the "settled will" of the people that effective action should be taken against handguns. A popular decision has been taken to move against the gun culture. While neither this nor the previous legislation can be said to render impossible another outrage like Hungerford or Dunblane, I think that the Bill reduces the chances of another outrage and represents a move in favour of public safety. For that reason, the Bill should certainly be supported.
The Bill deserves the support of all parties. It might not get it, but I am sure that it will receive a Third Reading with a substantial majority. I hope that it proceeds quickly onto the statute book.

Mr. Colvin: I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on her maiden speech which she made with great confidence and fluency and, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, without notes. That is always impressive, and I look forward to hearing many more contributions from her in due course.
I also strongly endorse what the hon. Lady said about her predecessor, Mr. Doug Hoyle. On my arrival in this place, I had been told that, as a new Member, the first thing that I should do was find myself a pair. I approached three hon. Members who to me looked and sounded like Labour Members, only to discover that they were Tories. I then tried two more people who turned out to be members of the press lobby. It was only at the sixth attempt that I discovered Mr. Hoyle. On looking him up in the good book which contains hon. Members' curricula vitae, I discovered that he was the president of the trade union to which I then belonged and which was known as the Association of Secretarial, Technical and Managerial Staffs. It was a vain attempt to get the president of my union to pair with a lowly Member of Parliament, because he was already paired with someone else. I nevertheless endorse the hon. Lady's remarks about Doug, who is a great loss to the House. We always enjoyed his company and listened attentively to anything he had to say.
When the Minister of State in moving Third Reading said that the Government have won the argument and the vote, he was half right. The Government have certainly won the vote, but they have again lost the argument. There were many sensible points advanced by opponents of the Bill that should have been more carefully considered.
I would endorse what the—
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Colvin: As I was saying, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan drew attention to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the Government steamrollering this Bill through. I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend, but he is the last person who should accuse the Government of steamrollering a Bill, because when sitting on the Government Benches during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, he was equally guilty of steamrollering through his measure. At that time, he, too, was opposed with similar vigour by some of us who knew something about shooting.
I fully understand the passion with which the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) made his speech and the sentiments he expressed. Those feelings were shared by a great many people following the tragedy of Dunblane, which is entirely understandable. The Snowdrop campaign, which reinforced that feeling and did so much to galvanise public opinion, was certainly responsible for the way in which the public reacted to the issue of handguns.
However, the initial hostility to handguns was then tempered by the common sense of Lord Cullen's report into the tragedy. It was significant that after the report had been made public, the press had commented on it and there had been debate in both Houses of Parliament about firearms legislation, some of the opinion polls and press comments started to be tempered by a modicum of common sense. For example, in October 1996, a poll in The Sunday Times, while supporting the proposals in what became the 1997 Act, showed only 54 per cent. in favour of a complete ban on all handguns. By December 1996, polls conducted in response to remarks by the Duke of Edinburgh showed that a majority of the public felt that a complete ban was an overreaction which unfairly penalised law-abiding citizens. Three telephone polls published at that time showed that between 68 and 75 per cent. of people were against a complete ban. By February this year, even in Scotland, where the tragedy took place, Market Research Scotland found that 39 per cent. of Scots believed that responsible gun users were being treated unfairly because of the action of one man. We, too, must temper our passionate feelings about Dunblane with an element of common sense
The Home Secretary has said clearly that, although he will use his section 5 powers to enable the Commonwealth games to go ahead in Manchester, one exception is enough. However, I would point out that there are already other exceptions. Athletics clubs use .32 and .38 calibre guns for starting races. Vets use such guns, as do slaughterhouses.
It was not unreasonable, therefore, to expect special exception to be made for single-shot .22 guns to be used for competition purposes. They cannot be concealed on a person, as .22s were concealed in the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.
I believe that the House was especially interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about dismantling firearms so that they may be kept in the home, avoiding the imposition of an enormous burden of financial investment on gun club security. If and when the Bill reaches the other place, the whole issue of dismantling .22 calibre weapons should be considered once more.
If the Government want suggestions as to amendments that they might introduce in the other place, I suggest that they consider including in the Bill a clause requiring that, after three years, a review be held of its provisions, including a review of the impact that they might have had on international competition shooting.
The other great injustice of the Bill, on which much has been said, is the issue of compensation. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider that matter, because, although there are provisions in the Bill for compensating people for loss of their handguns and loss of equipment, the clubs, many of which are heavily in debt as a result of the investment that they have made, and the people who have lost their busines, should be compensated as well.
There are plenty of precedents in this country for such compensation, but the Home Secretary should also consider the precedent of the Australian experience—which teaches us that, although draconian measures may be necessary, people should not be deprived of their livelihood, investment, money and jobs as a result. The Government should seriously reconsider that before proceeding with the Bill.

Mr. Grieve: This has been an interesting debate and I have tried to listen carefully to the Ministers' arguments. In a way, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for saying at the outset that the Bill was introduced on its merits because it dealt with the practical. I believe that he explained that the only morality in the issue was that of trying to ensure that people were not harmed by handguns.
As we have examined more and more minute applications of the rule to individual instances, it has been interesting to note how woefully deficient the Government have been in coming up with a concrete explanation or reason justifying the outlawing—if I may use that word—of categories of handgun use. Most notably, a strange ambiguity has crept in. Ministers have argued that these are practical considerations, whereas Labour Back Benchers have come up with far more powerful arguments, on a much higher moral plane, saying why handguns must go.
The extremely powerful maiden speech by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) introduced reasons for handgun legislation, and its specific application to .22 rounds, that have been wholly absent from the reasons that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have advanced.
The Home Secretary has made a series of repetitions, maintaining that the .22 would introduce loopholes that might lead to risks. It has never been explained to the


House how the restricted categories that we have discussed would produce those loopholes, when the mere fact that we shall also allow handguns into the country at the time of the Olympic games and Commonwealth games shows that exceptions can be created and tolerated. In that regard, the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to tonight's debate was far more philosophically and intellectually coherent than those of Ministers.
Instead, we have heard a whole series of arguments being wheeled out, dealing mainly with emotion—one of which, from the Home Secretary on Second Reading, greatly surprised me. We were to go along with his suggestion, he said, because it was endorsed by the Police Federation. I have spent time as a barrister prosecuting for the police, as a lay visitor to police stations, and as chairman of committees of police community consultative groups, and my admiration for the police is great. But if the Home Secretary is going to spend his time telling us to go along with things because the Police Federation want them, he will be the first Home Secretary gently to preside over leading us inexorably into a police state.
The issue before the House may ultimately be the moral issue for which the hon. Member for Warrington, North argued, but in the meantime I should point out that we live in a pluralist society—an idea to which the Home Secretary, in his civil liberties days, would often have adhered. It is certainly the view to which I adhere. Removing people's rights without good reason or cogent arguments makes for bad law—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a child's right to life is far more important than any adult's right to use a gun, even for so-called sporting purposes?

Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman could persuade me of any linkage between the two, I would respect his argument—but I have heard nothing to persuade me of it. Instead, throughout the debate Ministers have obfuscated, trying to conceal the fact that shooters in gun clubs are a law-abiding group indulging in a recreational pursuit. Labour Back Benchers, meanwhile, tell us that for moral reasons guns must go. These are the foundations of bad law, and I am sorry that the Minister of State does not see it that way.

Mr. Maclean: The House has been privileged over the week between Second and Third Readings to hear a number of excellent maiden speeches. I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on her fluent and confident speech. It was made, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, without notes—very impressive for a maiden speaker. We look forward to more, valuable contributions from her in due course.
I hope that one day the hon. Lady will develop the splendid accent of her predecessor, whom we all thought of with great affection. The story that comes to mind about him concerns the hapless Conservative candidate from the southern counties who, a few years ago, thought he would try his hand as a candidate in Warrington.

Unfortunately, he had not done all his homework. When asked by the local Conservative chairman, "What do you know about `oyle?", he went on to give a wonderful dissertation on the benefits of North sea oil, and wondered afterwards why he was not selected for the seat. If his successor picks up his accent in due course, that will be a bonus.
We approached the Bill with deep scepticism and we are still sceptical about it. We felt that it was unnecessary, unfair and costly. As the Bill has gone through all its stages, our initial attitudes have been confirmed and hardened.
Not only is the Bill unnecessary: it is petty and vindictive. Whenever the state considers limiting the activities of its law-abiding citizens, it must have a compelling justification. The Government have come up with no such justification at any stage of the Bill's progress. They claim that a total ban on handguns would increase public safety. If that were true, we would vote for it—just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and many other colleagues voted for the 1997 Act. That was the Act which brought about public safety and dealt with the Hamilton-Dunblane evil.
We challenged the Government to come up with evidence or valid research to back up their view that this Bill adds something in terms of public safety to what the 1997 Act achieved. They have not done so and they will not, because they cannot come up with evidence that the Bill is essential for additional public safety, following the draconian provisions in the 1997 Act.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Maclean: No, I want to conclude. I know that the Home Secretary wants to speak and the whole House is waiting. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
Both on Second Reading and in Committee, reasoned proposals to introduce an element of fairness—by allowing our top national competitors to continue to train and compete, or by allowing the disabled to be exempted from the ban—have been dismissed by Ministers, admittedly graciously dismissed by the Home Secretary, but dismissed all the same. The Government have closed their ears to positive suggestions that try to introduce an element of fairness. They are confident that they can deploy their army of Back-Bench Lobby fodder to ram through any proposals.
The Bill is unnecessary. The controls that we recently put in place are rigorous. Indeed, the provisions of the 1997 Act were regarded by many people as excessive when they went through. However, they would still have allowed British sportsmen to represent their country in international .22 target pistol competitions and they would still have allowed controlled and limited use of .22 handguns in clubs that met the highest security criteria.
The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), whom I respect immensely for a variety of reasons with which I shall not burden the House, made a wonderful, impassioned speech tonight. All his remarks were relevant to the 1997 Act. That is why we put the 1997 Act through: we did not put medals in front of children's lives. If the Bill were a matter of choice between medals and children's lives, the medals would never come into the equation. Children's lives come first.
However, we believe that the 1997 Act has ensured that the likes of Hamilton and Dunblane will not happen again. The Bill does not add to the public safety imperative that we enshrined in the 1997 Act. [Interruption.] When the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke on Second Reading or on Monday this week, they exposed the sham of the Labour free vote. It was a free vote in the Lobbies, but a three-line Whip on attendance. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, we could all read the semaphore signals by the Whips on the door, so we will take no lessons from the Government on bogus free votes in the House for them.
Regardless of the fact that the 1997 Act has not yet been implemented, the Government are determined to institute a total ban. We acknowledge that. For that reason, we tabled two new clauses in Committee. They were designed to introduce an element of fairness into an otherwise draconian and unjust Bill.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, a total ban will kill off .22 target pistol shooting as a sport. The Government should not say that it is all right for the disabled—they can move on to other forms of shooting instead. Most of them will not be able to do so. They are able to use pistols; in many cases, they would not be able to use rifles.
We believe that it is still possible to allow our national competitors to continue to train and compete, and to ensure the highest standards of public safety. Indeed, the Home Secretary believes that it is possible to allow people to shoot pistols in this country and he believes that in future they will be able to do so safely and securely. He told the House that he will use his powers under section 5 to allow pistol shooting in this country. The only trouble is that British sportsmen will not be doing it, unless they go abroad for a few years to keep up the practice. Then they can come back and benefit from the powers that the Secretary of State will use to allow such competitions in the Commonwealth games.
All that we have suggested in the new clauses is allowing the Home Secretary to use the same powers to permit British sportsmen, in the same tightly controlled conditions, to have the same rights to shoot pistols as he will allow those foreign competitors, but the Government rule that out. There was no logic behind their argument.
The Government have refused to contemplate the reasonable new clauses that we tabled. That is another reason why we will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill tonight.
The Government have been hazy about compensation. Where will they find the £30 million-plus? My right hon. and learned Friend asked whether it would come out of the CCTV camera scheme. I have a deep suspicion that it will. Will the Government find that sum in the police budget or will it come from some other source? If the Home Secretary is not prepared to cut any other Home Office budget, he will have to go cap in hand to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will add another £30 million to the Government's £12 billion expenditure black hole.
The Government have also dodged the question of compensating gun clubs as a result of the total ban on handguns. The total ban will force some clubs to close. The vast majority of gun clubs are non-profit making and pay for facilities with members' subscriptions.

Club trustees will face enormous liabilities when those clubs are forced to close. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we opted against compensating gun clubs during the passage of the 1997 legislation because clubs could remain open for shooters with lower-calibre pistols. Although it would be harder for them, the clubs could still survive.
The blanket ban imposed by the Bill will force gun clubs to close immediately—they cannot do anything else. Many clubs that cater to rifle and pistol shooting could follow suit. The Government's refusal to revisit the compensation issue is a further sign that they are hell bent on pushing ahead with a fundamentally unfair and harsh measure. That is why we oppose it. If this is the way in which Labour intends to govern, countless lawful groups and legitimate minorities will be the new victims of new Labour.
People's rights will be protected if they are flavour of the month in the opinion polls or the focus groups, but I send a warning to the country tonight: unless people fit the image created by our politically correct masters of new Labour, they will not have rights in future. It will not matter if their cause is just, because new Labour is not interested in that. Government policy is now driven by appealing to the gallery. We will oppose the Bill not just because it is unnecessary and unjust, but because it is the first in a potentially long list of measures on which the Government will not listen to reasonable arguments and will be determined to get their way, even when there is not the slightest justification for them.

Mr. Straw: As we have just heard, the debate has produced some sharp exchanges. However, the whole House is united on one issue this evening: we join in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for one of the finest maiden speeches that I have heard in 18 years in this place. I commend her speech to the House—particularly in view of the fact that she delivered it without the assistance of notes and with great poise and fluency.
Doug Hoyle was well known to many hon. Members. I had the privilege of serving with Doug in the shadow Cabinet for many years and of canvassing for him in the dreary 1982 by-election. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned Lord Jenkins. It always rains in Warrington whenever I am there—and I travel through the town at least once a week while on my way to Blackburn, where it also rains a lot. That dismal experience of canvassing in Warrington, North in 1982 is fixed in my brain because Mr. Jenkins—as he then was—was the Social Democratic party candidate and I was canvassing in Jenkins road. It was a long time before I found a voter who was willing to support the Labour candidate. Despite my lack of persuasive powers on that occasion, Doug won the seat and he served the House and the Labour party very well. I am sure that my hon. Friend will prove a fine replacement.
We have been treated to a string of hyperbolic adjectives in support of the Opposition's position, which is that there is a huge gulf between the stance that they adopted in government in respect of the case for banning handguns above .22 calibre and the case that we are making for banning handguns of .22 calibre and below. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) went right over the top as he wound up his speech by suggesting that if we were to pass the Bill, it would somehow mean the end of civilisation as we know it.
I should just like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of two things. First, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, had there been a free vote on the Conservative Benches before the general election, this Bill would not have been necessary. The simple truth was, and remains, that there was an unwhipped majority in the House in favour of a total ban on handguns in general civilian use. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border both asked me what is the case for the Bill. Let me remind them that it is one of public safety.
Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's measure, 160,000 handguns were taken out of circulation right away; the remaining 40,000—the .22s—could be stored and used in what were described as secure gun clubs.
Before the general election, the House had to decide on the logical argument that if there were to be secure gun clubs safe enough for guns of .22 calibre and below, why would those gun clubs not also be safe enough for the storage and use of guns above .22 calibre? After all, guns below or above .22 calibre have the common characteristic that each can quickly kill a large number of people. In answer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that those gun clubs could not be secure enough for the storage and use of guns above .22 calibre. He said:
higher calibre guns are particularly attractive to criminals and their storage in gun clubs in large numbers, whether dismantled or in one piece, would make gun clubs more attractive targets for theft."—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 787.]
One of the reasons why the right hon. and learned Gentleman lost that argument before the general election, if he did not quite lose the vote, was that he asked the House to accept that there was something intrinsically less safe in a .32 multi-shot handgun than in a .22 multi-shot handgun, but that is palpably not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North said, .22 handguns have been the weapon of choice of assassins and criminals across the world. Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin were killed with .22 handguns. Had Thomas Hamilton been in possession of .22 handguns rather than .357 magnums he could have achieved exactly the same carnage as he tragically and sadly did on 13 March last year.
The debate has understandably concentrated on where we draw the line and on the people who will be adversely affected by the Bill if, as I hope, it is passed. We are talking about up to 40,000 people who currently hold handgun certificates for .22 weapons and below. Although their interests are important, we should remember that the Bill was introduced out of the deepest shock and revulsion that was experienced across the country when, on 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton ran amok in Dunblane primary and in the space of three minutes killed 16 children and one adult and injured many more children. In the course of that, he traumatised the families and friends of those children and the town of Dunblane.
Thomas Hamilton shocked the nation. Questions were asked about how we had allowed the situation to develop where there were 200,000 handguns in general circulation, not for occupational use, but for the pursuit of a sport. That terrible tragedy brought us up sharp and brought home to us the question whether this country should ever again allow

such a large number of handguns to be in general civilian use and pose such a potential danger as that which tragically occurred at Dunblane on 13 March.

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I am about to conclude.
The House was almost united in supporting the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to take out of circulation 160,000 of those 200,000 weapons. But it allowed 40,000 lethal handguns to remain available for use.
I regret that there are perfectly law-abiding shooters who will be disadvantaged both by the 1997 Act and by the Bill when it is enacted. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, we and he have approached this matter much more in sorrow than in anger. It is the Government's view, however, endorsed by the House, that the right to life must come before the right to practise a sport.
I believe that we owe the Bill to the parents and the children of Dunblane. It will bring into place tighter controls than those introduced by the 1997 Act. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the levels of control of handguns are commensurate with public safety. The Bill fulfils that responsibility and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 164.

Division No. 36]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Christine


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen 


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard (Shedd Hallam)
Campbell, Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caplin, lvor


Atherton, Ms Candy
Casale, Roger


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Caton, Martin


Austin, John
Cawset, Ian


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Champman, Ben (Wirral S)


Banks, Tony
Chaytor, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Mrs Ann 


Blizzard, Robert
Coaker, Vernon 


Borrow, David
Coffey, Ms Ann 


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cohen, Harry 


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)


Bradshaw, Ben



Brand. Dr Peter
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Connarty, Michael


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Cooper, Ms Yvette



Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Corston, MS Jean


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Cousins, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Crausby, David


Burgon, Colin
Cryer. Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Burstow, Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)






Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hope, Philip


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Iddon, Brian


Dean, Ms Janet
Illsley, Eric


Denham, John
Ingram, Adam


Dismore, Andrew
Jackson, Glenda (Hampst'd)


Dobbin, Jim
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jamieson, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Dowd, Jim
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw
Jones, Barry (Deeside)


Efford. Clive
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Fearn, Ronnie



Fisher, Mark
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Flint, Ms Caroline
Jowell, Tessa


Flynn, Paul
Keeble, Ms Sally


Follett, Ms Barbara
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brenfford)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Fyfe, Maria



Galbraith, Sam
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Galloway, George
Kidney, David


Gapes, Mike
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gardiner, Barry
King, Andy (Rugby)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
King, Oona (Bethnal Green)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kingham, Tessa


Gerrard, Neil
Kirkwood, Archy


Gibson, Dr. Ian
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Godman, Dr. Norman A
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Godsiff, Roger
Laxton, Bob


Goggins, Paul
Lepper, David


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Leslie, Christopher


Gorrie, Donald
Levitt, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Grant, Bernie
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Linton, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Livingstone, Ken


Grogan, John
Livsey, Richard


Gunnell, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lock, David


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Love. Andy


Hancock, Mike
McAllion, John


Hanson, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCabe, Stephen


Healey, John
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hepburn, Stephen
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Heppell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hesford, Stephen
McFall, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hill, Keith
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Hinchliffe, David
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
McMaster, Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Hoon, Geoffrey
McNulty, Tony



MacShane, Denis





McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Ms Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stunell, Andrew


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Swinney, John


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs. Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr. Doug



Norris Dan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Mike (Warks)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Edward
Thomas, Gareth R. (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverhampton SE)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wallace, James


Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Webb, Steven


Prosser, Gwyn
Welsh, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Alan


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Rapson, Syd
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David



Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wise, Audrey


Ruane, Chris
Wood, Mike


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wray, James


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Salmond, Alex
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Jonathan
David Clelland and



Kevin Hughes


NOES


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Barnes, Harry


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J






Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gray, James


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Green, Damian


Burnett, John
Greenway, John


Burns, Simon
Grieve, Dominic


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
Hague, Rt Hon William


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Harris, Dr. Evan


Clappison, James
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hayes, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver



Heath, David (Somerton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, Nigel
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Faber, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Fabricant, Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Flight, Howard
Letwin, Oliver


Forth, Eric
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Foster, Don
Lidington, David





Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Loughton, Tim
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Luff, Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spicer, Sir Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Merchant, Piers
Temple—Morris, Peter


Moore, Michael
Thompson, William


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Norman, Archie
Trend, Michael


Opik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul


Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Walter, Robert


Paterson, Owen
Wardle, Charles


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Prior, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Willis, Phil


Ruffley, David
Woodward, Shaun


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Yeo, Tim


Sanders, Adrian



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Bowen Wells and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Peter Ainsworth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Breast Cancer (Devon)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mrs. Angela Browning: An independent review commissioned by the Royal Devon and Exeter healthcare NHS trust identified micro-calcification in nine mammograms that needed further assessment rather than the advice that the patients had been given—that they should return home and wait for the normal recall period of three years for another mammogram. The issue has been raised on the Floor of the House before, but I welcome the opportunity to engage in a fuller discussion tonight, because the matter is of great concern to women and their families living in the Exeter area, including those in my constituency.
I am aware of the sensitivity of the subject. Cancer in any form can cause fear, and breast cancer causes fear to many women, especially those currently undergoing treatment. I do not intend to spread alarm by raising the matter tonight, but, in view of its seriousness, I would welcome the Minister's recognition of the fact that much wider implications in matters of policy and procedure will emerge from the very necessary investigation that is now to be held at Wonford House hospital in Exeter.
Now that the Chamber has cleared somewhat, let me express my gratitude for the presence of members of all parties. I note that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) is here, as are Cornwall Members. They are here because they are aware of the wide-reaching implications of what has been revealed following the Exeter hospital announcement.
Let me put on record that it was the trust's own quality control that identified the problem. I pay tribute to it for having such measures in place and for being extremely frank and open in wanting the matter to be fully investigated and to be brought into the pubic domain. I also fully endorse the recommendation of the hospital's management that women should continue to keep their appointments at the hospital while the matter is being investigated.
The number of undetected breast cancers among women screened by the east Devon service is within the national average range—30 cancers for every 10,000 in the population. I shall refer later to the implications, the figures and the position as it compares with that in the rest of the country.
On 9 June in answer to a private notice question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), it was stated that two consultants who were advising those patients were to be retrained. However, it was with concern that I read an article in The Independent on Saturday 7 June this year which identified the case of Miss Simone Renvoize who was treated by one of those consultants in his former hospital, the Treliske, in Cornwall.
I have received a copy of a letter, which I understand has been sent to the Secretary of State for Health by the cousin of Miss Renvoize, who has now died. I should like to read from a small portion of that letter. Miss Renvoize's cousin, Mrs. Barnes, states that in 1990 her cousin, Simone Renvoize, was sent to one of the consultant radiologists currently suspended for a

mammogram at Treliske hospital in Truro. It revealed tumours in both breasts. However, she was told that her lumps were purely hormonal, leading to a delay of six and eleven and a half months respectively for mastectomies which she later had. Fellow radiologists who subsequently reviewed those X-rays could see clearly both the tumours. Mrs. Barnes's concern was that the error was known about while this doctor was employed at the Treliske hospital and he was even to move to the Exeter hospital with no suggestion of retraining at that time. She states that her cousin also began a legal case seeking redress for the inadequacies of her diagnosis and that treatment and medico-legal reports were prepared but still no one alerted the Exeter hospital.
We all recognise and, having worked for a short time in the Wonford House hospital, I certainly recognise, that doctors are not infallible and make mistakes. In cancer diagnosis especially, a doctor may often see grey areas on a mammogram that are not easy immediately to recognise. However, it seems that here the people concerned did not err on the side of caution, which is a reasonable expectation by patients. It is clear that the same procedures were carried out by the same person over a long period.
I have asked the management of Wonford House hospital what references were taken up and whether anything was drawn to their attention that made it clear that retraining was needed much earlier. I understand that inquiries have been made and that nothing in the references of this person gave any reason for further investigation.
I have also received a letter from a constituent who is a state registered nurse and who worked at the Wonford House hospital. She expressed concerns about staff in the unit who have been aware of the diagnosis controversy but who, in many cases, felt it difficult to share their concerns with senior management at the hospital. I should like to ask the Minister to consider two matters in relation to the wider implications of this issue.
First, will the hon. Lady look at the way in which medical references are taken up? That matter bears further investigation, not just in this case but in the case of boards which interview clinicians. Does the way that those interviews are carried out mean that boards can be absolutely sure that they are receiving an accurate account of a person's aptitude and ability to carry out specific tasks? Secondly, as a result of what has been said and written to me by hospital staff, I am aware that the issue of whistleblowers can be controversial and can have adverse effects both ways.
There must be a structure in hospitals to allow staff to make concerns known to senior management without feeling in any way intimidated or that their positions are put at risk. Obviously, here we have a situation where I am being told by a nurse in that hospital that it was common knowledge that there was concern among other staff that there were problems in this area.
There is always the question of the clinician, the surgeon, having the final say and using his or her medical judgment about an individual case, and we all recognise their need to be able to do that. If Wonford House hospital in Exeter is, like other hospitals throughout the country, to be designated a specialist centre for cancer treatment, those of us who live in the region and who use the hospital


must have confidence that we are receiving in that hospital the best possible practice that has been garnered from the best hospitals throughout the country.
My understanding was that the chief medical officer's recommendations—the Calman response to considering the way in which we take forward specialist cancer centres in the region—envisaged that, instead of those of us who live out in the sticks having to go to the big cities or even to London for specialist treatment for serious diseases, the best that was available would come to us, and that, if it came to us, the hospitals that offered that level of treatment would be able to say that they were specialist cancer treatment centres. I am sure that I speak for many of my constituents—I am certainly speaking personally now—when I say that, if I needed specialist treatment, particularly cancer treatment, I would rather have it at the Royal Marsden hospital and know that I was going to get the best treatment than have someone stick a label on my local hospital, which did not live up to its name.
In fairness to the people who work in Wonford House hospital, particularly those working in other disciplines and specialising in other areas of cancer treatment, it is vital that an analysis is made not just of the procedures that are carried out there, but of what it is able to offer us in terms of outcomes, if it is to become a specialist centre.

Sir Peter Emery: In pressing what my hon. Friend is saying, and I have followed it clearly, will she urge the Minister to examine the facts so that the hospital can reassure what must be about 5,000 to 6,000 women who have been tested that they are no longer at risk or, if there is any risk, that they are going to be called back in at the earliest possible and proper time to be re-examined? It is essential that those people should not be left still wondering what is going to happen to them.

Mrs. Browning: I concur with my right hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents. We want not only quick action and a full investigation of what has gone on, but lessons to be learnt from this. Clearly, there are lessons to be learnt that may have even national implications over a wide area. I hope that this debate will trigger that. It is my intention that we learn from what has been an unhappy experience.
Women need reassurance that the way in which they are screened, diagnosed and treated for breast cancer should not be a geographical lottery. Where people live should not matter in terms of the sort of service that they receive. We should be considering why different parts of the country produce different outcomes. The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund charity endorses my view that this country's mortality rate does not compare well with that of other countries.
We have one of the worst records in the world for breast cancer. It is difficult to identify why that is so. There is research into the matter and various theories are suggested, but the fact is that our rate is 29.3 per 100,000 of population, whereas it is 19.4 in France and 17.3 in Germany. When our rate compares so badly with those of other countries, surely within the whole spectrum of the medical profession dealing with the disease there must be a concentrated interest in the reason for the figures and what can be done to reduce them through screening, diagnosis and treatment.
Anyone working in the medical profession, whether at consultant or any other level, should be hungry to identify what is happening elsewhere in the country and what new procedures are being adopted. We must gamer the best practice that is available and take that out into the regions.
When I looked in the Library, I found figures produced by Macmillan showing that mortality rates from breast cancer in the south-west between 1993 and 1995—the latest figures available—were higher per 100,000 of population than was the case in any other part of the country. That, too, is a cause of concern. If the disease is being treated better in other parts of the country, please can we find out what it is that they do better and please can the people who practise is this area of medicine and surgery in my part of the country not be too proud to find out why the rates are better elsewhere? We want the matter to be taken seriously. I know that the Department's guidelines to purchasing authorities say that they should look at outcomes. Right across the spectrum, outcomes involve what happens in screening, what happens when cancer is detected and what happens thereafter.
I hope that tonight the Minister will reassure us that what has happened in Exeter will be fully investigated and that any lessons to be learned, which may have national implications, will be speedily adopted by the Department. We look to the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that no stone is left unturned. Until the matter is investigated and the lessons learned, and until there are changes to put things right, I and other women will not be fully confident about what is being offered to us locally.
It is devastating for women who have or think they may have breast cancer. We know that doctors cannot always perform miracles, but let us get as near to a miracle as we can.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for raising this subject this evening. I am glad to echo both her feelings of outrage and the regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week about what happened in Devon. This debate gives us the opportunity to say once again how sorry we are for the women and their families and friends who have been affected in a variety of ways—and in particular, those close to the two women who died because of the events that gave rise to the inquiry.

Mr. Paul Tyler: As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, one of those concerned was a constituent of mine. It was a tragic case of misdiagnosis at the Treliske hospital in Cornwall. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just people in Devon who are affected by what happened at the Wonford House hospital—there is anxiety throughout the west country.
The failure of information between one hospital trust and another raises important questions about the relationship between trusts in different parts of the country. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.

Ms Jowell: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, we regret the distress, further illness, and in two cases the deaths, of patients who had the right to expect better. That is why we have taken rapid action to


establish precisely what happened in that dreadful business and to learn, as quickly as we can, any lessons that that horrifying story has to teach us.
I wish briefly to set out the facts as we currently understand them. In February this year, concern was expressed by medical staff about the work of two consultant radiologists, one employed by the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust and the other by the South Devon Healthcare NHS trust at Torbay.
Contrary to the impression given by some reports in the media, the consultants undertook diagnostic mammography for women with symptoms of cancer, as well as more routine breast cancer screening. Twelve sets of mammograms, including both symptomatic and screening cases, were sent for an external review to an independent consultant who worked in Nottingham. Nine of those mammograms were found to be faulty.
The review concluded that further assessment should have been undertaken in nine of the cases. It recommended that the doctors concerned should undergo formal retraining and that further audits should be undertaken of the mammograms of all women identified as requiring early recall for screening, and of all cancers that have occurred between screenings in the past five years.
The doctors concerned are not currently working in the NHS and management action is under way locally to review the management of the breast screening service and the provision of symptomatic services. An audit will be undertaken of the films of women who have been scheduled for recall earlier than the normal three-year screening interval, the films of women recalled for assessment after screening during the previous two years and the films of women with cancer that has occurred between screening invitations.
There will be a meeting shortly between the trust and representatives from other screening centres to make the necessary arrangements for the audit. I should add that both screening and services for breast cancer are continuing to be provided in Exeter, as locum arrangements have been made.
I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the Government are determined to get to the bottom of what happened at the Royal Devon and Exeter trust. We would welcome any information to help the inquiry from hon. Members who may be able, through constituency cases or other representations, to shed further light on the events that led to the tragedies.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, the Government's chief medical officer is undertaking an urgent review of breast services in Exeter, to establish the facts and to report his findings to the Secretary of State, and, in the light of those findings, to consider the implications for breast cancer services as a whole, again reporting his conclusions to the Secretary of State. We hope that his report will be available by mid-July. An interim and immediate report on the inquiry so far will be available by the end of this week and my right hon. Friend will happy to brief the hon. Lady about the interim findings.
The chief medical officer has assembled a distinguished independent team to assist him, including the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, a consultant surgeon from Huddersfield, a cancer nursing specialist, who is also a member of the expert advisory group on cancer,

the chief executive of the Royal Marsden hospital, and Miss Polly Toynbee, who will represent lay interests. The team has already started work—it visited Exeter yesterday and began by interviewing a wide range of staff to collect detailed information.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the need to take representations from staff who may be reluctant to come forward. It is important that the views and information that staff gain in clinical practice are made available. We realise that some trusts make that task more difficult for staff than others, but we will provide every assistance to staff members, so that their representations aid the inquiry.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for the constructive and tripartisan approach that hon. Members have adopted in dealing with the crisis. I am grateful also for the swift and open way in which the Government and the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital have responded.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister please continue to encourage women in my constituency to come forward for testing, which is incredibly important? Today, can she tell those women that they can have full faith in the results of current hospital tests? Will she also confirm that the Government's commitment to women's health and the £10 million that Ministers have earmarked to speed up the breast screening process will help to resolve some of the problems that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned and our poor record nationally in dealing with breast cancer?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and I entirely endorse his call to women, not only in his constituency but in all constituencies, to continue to attend for breast cancer screening, because screening remains the single most effective way in which to identify breast cancer at a very early stage.
The Government will not rest until we have applied in practice every lesson that the inquiry shows must be learned and applied. Women should realise not only the importance of regular screening but the fact that screening services will be subject to regular review and quality checks. Those services will be supported and developed further in the light of the best possible information on developments in treatment and screening technology.
It is therefore important that we identify specifically what happened in a dreadful set of circumstances and ensure that those lessons are applied locally, to restore and rebuild women's confidence. We must also ensure that the lessons learned are applied across the screening service and on a national basis.

Sir Peter Emery: I cannot do other than praise the Minister for the action that the Government are taking for the future; but how shall I respond to women who write to me saying, "Sir Peter, I have been there; what do I do? I had a test two years ago or 18 months ago—am I at risk? What action should I take? How should I react to this great problem?" Reassurance of those people is of very considerable importance to all constituents, whether they are in Exeter, Totnes or any other local constituency.


I had hoped that we would find a way in which to give such reassurance to those women as soon as humanly possible.

Ms Jowell: It is obviously a matter of concern. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to refer his constituents who may have those concerns to the helpline that was established immediately after the events were disclosed. I also assure him that a further audit of mammograms and diagnostic investigation is being conducted to establish that no further mistakes were made. I would in the first instance suggest that the right hon. Gentleman refers his constituents to the helpline, so that they get the reassurance and information that they might want.
We shall certainly continue supporting the implementation of the Calman/Hine model of cancer service, which we believe provides the best and safest basis for the delivery of cancer services in Devon and Exeter, as well as across the country. We also intend to produce a series of evidence-based guideline documents responding to some of the points raised by the hon.

Member for Tiverton and Honiton in relation to the importance of lessons learned in practice being applied to future clinical development. We are determined to ensure that those lessons are applied for the benefit not only of her constituents but of people across the country.
The hon. Lady asked about local cancer centres. The Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust and the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust have both been designated as cancer centres, but it was agreed that the Plymouth Hospitals trust would take responsibility for clinical leadership.
The hon. Lady will also be aware that we are moving to the implementation of clear treatment protocols, which will be a very important step in ending the geographical lottery and ensuring that there is a national breast cancer service for all women—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.